Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. Senate





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17 (141 MHz)






America 62, Us 50, Washington 40, China 13, United States 10, U.s. 9, Ronald Reagan 8, D.c. 8, Florida 8, Afghanistan 7, California 7, Iraq 6, Virginia 6, Europe 6, North Dakota 6, Israel 5, Graham 5, Joe Biden 5, Dc 5, Mr. Lewis 4,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. Senate    News/Business.  

    March 15, 2013
    12:00 - 5:00pm EDT  

on the number of cases that specific law -- one reason the civil case law or dhaka -- docket is down in the court is the new statutes that congress passed which produces litigation there haven't been many last year the health statued one but that took a long time to come up with to read the bankruptcy reform act was more than ten years ago dows produced pieces. new statutes passed by the congress generate. dodd-frank and the other securities act of the cases haven't seemed to produce much of those cases are beginning to work their way through the
system. >> i will let one of thing that might be useful and that is i am thinking of prefiguring some memories and the problem it doesn't change much over 40 or 40 years. it's more pressing now and that it's been around for a long time and there were two things. 1i went to and the other i read many years ago that i thought were useful in this respect. one, chief justice burger used to have williamsburg conferences where he would invite members of congress, their staff as well as their judges to discuss all kinds of issues of interest in the judiciary of less interest in congress but some more interested and one year this was the subject, exactly this subject of how could you make the judiciary more efficient and people have a range of papers. testing, all sorts of ideas and i think that it would be perhaps interesting for you or your staff to read. the affair was lee campbell judging the first circuit was on
a commission or head of the commission called the judiciary of the future or something and that was written probably 20 years ago in the east sometime and they were considering different ways of restructuring other reforms if the judiciary continued to grow in its caseload so i think in that you will find a variety of interesting ideas how to -- what you want to do as the input increases, you don't want to diminish the output by you want a more efficient way of getting to the scene output of getting it, you know, letting it drop a proportion. >> the judiciary has found that if a judge gets in a civil case gets into the litigation release and has settlement conferences and attempt mediation and so forth, that you can reduce the caseload and maybe come to a settlement the party thinks is efficient. that is costly for the judge.
it takes a lot of time for the judge and if by chance the case is not settled, a lot of that effort has been wasted. one of the things we're finding is that the major civil litigation in the united states is being taken out of the judicial system and going into arbitration and it is a matter of great concern that this judicial system that we have devoted our life and career isn't seen as the fairest most effective efficient way to resolve disputes and it is and what that is in part because of the substantive law that makes it risky for major defendants to go into the litigation system. many lawyers tell me we will tell our clients we do have a very good case.
we think that you should prevail. you can't take a risk. and there is something wrong with that. >> you may know the judge is going to talk about this next week. the judicial conference is setting up the cost containment and structuring and making an effort to achieve an objective across the payment for restructuring and he's going to discuss that. >> media i will try to reduce the temmins between now and next week that you've suggested. thank you. i appreciate all of the ideas and i guess justice kennedy, the notion biggest issue for changes create the opportunity for litigation mother is bankruptcy or dodd-frank or health care, certainly there is gridlock in washington, d.c. that is aid to the courts and we are not getting some of those right now. so you can send us a thank you card on that. with that mr. chairman of yield that. >> we have been joined by the
ranking member of the full appropriations committee and we would like to welcome her and asked her if she has any questions she would like to pose. >> i do, mr. tran anh. or fortunately, one of the responsibilities is to go to almost all of the appropriations hearings. so, i apologize that i am delayed. and i just want to say that it is such an honor for me to have justice kennedy and brighter here before us today. my husband, as you know, justice lawyer, has been practicing law for over 55 years, and he's never had the honor of asking you questions. so i don't know if he's watching c-span but believe me, i'm going to tell him about this. so i thank you very, very much and i really appreciate your dedication to our country and the court. we are -- now, just one question and one comment.
if the sequester were to continue, the federal judiciary would see a reduction as you know of approximately $350 million. the chief justice roberts recently noted that a significant and prolonged shortfall in judicial funding would inevitably result in the delay or denial of justice for the people the court served. i am very concerned that bankruptcy proceedings, civil cases will be delayed, that u.s. attorneys will not have the resources to prosecute important cases. and that when some criminal cases to trial date could infringe on the defendant's right to a speedy trial. potentially allowing the wrong people to walk free. a simple question are you concerned that if the sequester could infringe on the trial or other elements of due process?
>> i could adopt your carefully thought out questionnaires might answer. >> thank you. >> all of the risk, all of the potential, all of the concerns that we have about long-term sequestration encapsulated in your question, yes, the trials would be delayed calles, bankruptcy would be delayed. remember, bankruptcy is a way for businesses to start over. this is cost-efficient. one of the signers of the constitution went bankrupt. this is an old problem. bankruptcy judges, some of the hardest working judges in the system and they have tremendous amount of all. they have to the bankruptcy law, the head and a state law, community property law, they have to know all of law. they have tremendous workloads, but they keep this economy going.
and if you slow that down, if you slow down civil dispositions where contracts are waiting to be enforced with the plant is quick to be built or so forth, whether the damages are going to be paid through someone who was the victim of the breach of conduct. if you're going to cause dismissal of the suits because of criminal suits, criminal prosecutions because of the light, then you're threatening the efficiency of the legal structure. thank you very much. to have one of the comments i want to share with you, this month you will hear cases that are of the utmost importance to many american families. that is with the gay americans have the right to marry straight
couples and whether the congress can deprive legally married gay couples of the federal recognition and benefits. i mention this not because i expect either of you to speak on this issue. in fact i know you will not. president bill clinton who resigned doma enchilada and now requests its demise recently wrote the question of the cases rests on, quote, whether it is consistent with the principles of the nation that honors freedom, equality and justice of all and is therefore unconstitutional. in the time that has passed since 1996, my views along with president clinton and obama and many of my colleagues, the country's, the makeup of our families of all changed for what i think is the better to be a those of us in congress, regardless of religion our party
represent human beings and the loving relationships who wish to have the rights to those granted seven on the podium to date. i cannot in good conscience tell my constituents that their country does not tell you their bond, their commitment or their family. i ask you just to consider my words and thank you again. it's a privilege to have us before you today. thank you. >> thank you. we have a little bit of time and i wanted to ask as a second round of questions a couple appropriations questions i mentioned earlier and i think $3 million of your request this year of $86.5 million operation i guess maintenance, preservation, as i go by the supreme court i guess is that the west front that looks like you were looking at it and the east front, and i understand
there is a request for some money to fix up i guess it would be the north and the south. is that maybe just tell me a little bit about what is going on i guess i would call with the front and the back and what's next i guess the architect of the capitol makes that decision when i was the chair of the branch committee we found the office and he had a long list in terms of the priorities on what needed to be done we can't always afford to do everything but i assume that moved up on his list and that's why it is in your request. could you talk briefly about that? >> what's happening -- and this was not predicted, at least we did not know about it, the marble of the court because of moisture, flaking, because of exposure to the elements is becoming to come off and it's
actually life-threatening. some chunks of marble have actually dropped down. as of the scaffold that you see was moved all around the building and will take a couple of years to finish. we have what we call to the ballet productions and print theaters which is a screening canvas if there is a painting on at what you're looking at is not really the supreme court. it is a picture of the supreme court. it's actually fascinating. and i -- it kind of reminds me of the cave to the i don't know if i am in the cave or out of the cave in these shadows. so, we are going to have to put up with this. but this is not optional unless it is to be torn down. >> do you have to finish the work that you are doing now on the east and the west before you start to move around the building?
>> my understanding is that it is going to be done in quadrants and they will finish the front before they do the side. the front is the most dangerous part because that is where it is falling. >> the 3 million was the number given to the next part, the east -- >> we understand that is the total, that is for the total cost of going all the way around the building. >> the north and south is being funded. >> while i'm talking about that, when you go by using the big hole that is next to the supreme court, is that something you all are working on or is that somebody else -- [laughter] >> that's going to be a vegetable garden. actually it's part of the landscaping we had to tear it up in order to make the subterranean addition in the improvement was done some years
ago >> one other question in 2013 and is my understanding that there was a million-dollar request made for some police radio funding and they didn't provide that. do you know whether the police radios were upgraded or acquired and if so where did the money come from pacs >> we will have to get back to you on that. >> thank you for that. mr. serrano, do you have -- >> i would like to say that if from where we sit it's been wonderful to see come and you can't see this as the number of young people that have spent time this morning watching this
hearing they've been in the back. they've been in and out but large groups have stayed for a long time and, you know, i'm always interested as we all are and how they see our system, how they see our country and what they want to do about it in the future in terms of their involvement in their opinions. and so to have the branches here listening to the garden and everything the whole idea is something we can be proud of today that we are able to be here. let me ask a question to the it as i continue to be interested in seeing an increase in the number of the minorities selected for the supreme court courtships, i know that there has been an initiative in place of the federal judiciary to help recruit more minorities into the positions. do you think these efforts are starting to bear fruit at the levels and also college right question coming to use the get all school seminars and the
competition's and other things with young people is it a part of the message to encourage some folks to apply for these physicians? i taught for many years and i've been teaching in europe for 25 years and justice breyer of course was a regular member of the faculty. i'm sure that all of our colleagues encourage them. i used to tell the clerkship when i was a court of appeals judge they would come in and say that they wanted to be with me for a year. i just have to tell you truth in advertising you would learn a lot more if you're with the district court. the district court has to do everything i do, they have the right opinion as a research case, plus they try cases. i know. dalia understand.
if you have a clerk that has been with the district court, they have a respect for the record and for the evidenciary process that have been on the appellate system sometimes need training. so i really encourage folks to start. it's been pretty wonderful. one of the devotee integers of being a united states judges we have the secret of youth if you are surrounded by young people it gives you new perspectives and insights and energies. >> i think -- i've had quite a few minority clerks into law actually, and the has been a change over at the time in that and there has been an improvement in the sense that i haven't had to look as hard, and you know, you have had to do a lot of encouragement. you had to do a little effort 15 years ago to go bald and say
where and hal and then say i am not going to bite you, you know, please and so forth. i would say the extent to which requires the effort is an improved, but it still does require something of an effort. and so the more that -- less than it did but i think consciousness is important. so i think it can encourage people that's right. and at these different levels you will see, you know, you are not giving anybody a favor. he will see that its -- the effort pays off and it is worthwhile. >> i have one last question, mr. chairman and that is the issue that we discussed before in the supreme court. we know that right now it applies to other judges and for the court applies as an advisory situation. a different thoughts do they
change hall on that whole issue of applying this requirement? >> i've never had a problem with it because in my own professional career i'm absolutely confident in the career and the manner in which my colleagues conduct themselves we consider those guidelines absolutely binding. the problem is they can and should be made by members of the gulf and judicial committee, district judges and circuit judges and we think this difficult for circuit judges to make rules binding on us. as a matter of following those steps i think justice breyer explained very well there are
some differences of recusal. if there is any reason at all for the district judge or the court of appeals to recuse themselves they will do that. but on our court if we refuse without finding it necessary to do so then you might have the full court and everybody's time is wasted but that doesn't mean it's different guidelines. i have in my office the seven volumes and they are always nice and if there is a recusal problem like the other members of the court go to the volume and look it up. we each have a system in case we can't figure out what the answer is and i called some professors and what's your interpretation, what should i do? okay. so, i see no difference right now between the supreme court and the rest of the courts in terms of the binding nature to the if you go past will all
about it that raises questions. you know, people love to argue those kind of questions. who has the right to do what i don't think raise unnecessary questions is my reaction. and i don't see any necessity now and the difference that comes about is just what justice kennedy said. you don't want to be manipulated by somebody on the case so you are careful. >> thank you for your answer to the i have no further questions. thank you for your testimony today and for your almost opinion on my case pitting it will be fine. and we continue and i know the german shares this view and i shared with him our goal is to strengthen the judiciary to make sure but even in these difficult times the whole system is able to do what it has to do on behalf of our communities and
our democracy. was beautiful about those young people being you today, seeing the branches speak to each other is the fact that we have a system that allows that in the system we can ask questions and get answers and continue to function. sometimes i think we forget that and we celebrate people in other countries coming to the evolutions, but we never wonder what it is that they want and i suspect there are many cases where they want is what we have or something very similar to that and i celebrate that today as i speak to you. thank you. >> mabey as an aside, the last time i was on this committee i guess a couple years ago we were sitting around chatting. justice breyer, you won't remember but i can remember there was a case i can't remember the name of the case.
i always thought was mulberry versus madison but the statement in the case was a always remembered basically it says versatility of circumstance often mocks the desire for the effectiveness and i always thought that was interesting and well said. i'm not sure what means. i think it means maybe you could to be flexible. but what i asked, justice breyer, if he remembered maybe what case his response was justin google late, which i did, and it did not come up. so, justice kennedy, you were not here that day. does that ring a bell? can you cite the case that may have come from? >> it does not sound like -- like john marshall, john marshall uses a couple that he could remember. he could memorize and he had
over 600 that affected his writing style. lincoln and churchill both read a very few bucks but they read them again and again. lincoln because he didn't have any and he read the bible shakspere again and again and robert burns. churchill by choice he thought he should read them again and again that not many so she wrote gibbons and if you read -- the quote that you gave is baffling i think it might come from. >> i'm going to keep looking. i'm going to keep looking. >> i think it is a good point particularly not for the legislators and judges i think. in 1584, montaigne, a fabulous essay on the experiences.
he said he talked about the law and he says, you know, they got really angry at the judge's duties and i'm going to fix those judges. what i'm going to do is pass the code that is so complicated and so detailed the judgment she says what he doesn't understand every word in the statute is for the lawyer the more arguments you have the more the judges can do anything they want and he says that is the worst possible thing. he says i would rather live in the country with no walls havana with too many and by the way the reason is just because he and experience in such.
circumstances come up that we never thought of that we need to keep a little flexibility that is the point and i'll of remembering that as a judge i must have read it somewhere. >> we have been joined by the major. do you have any questions you would like to pose? >> these are busy times for all of the members i feel left out and not being an lawyer in some of these conversations i did play a judge on law-and-order wants some may be scared that
part. thank you for being here today for your willingness to come and testify and it is one of the i think interesting hearings that we have to see the exchange between what is a very important range of our government so that we can have this kind of balance. thank you again. this meeting is adjourned.
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this is the second day of the 40th anniversary cpac conference
in washington, d.c.. we've been covering a number of speeches and you can find them all out .. slow-growing developing countries have had for decades lower fertility rates. japan and europe particularly and russia. now china is starting to feel the impact of its one-child policy.
we're better off than the rest of the developed world but our fertility has dropped below break even, 1.8, the lowest drop in history. we have a tried and true way to deal with this demographic time bomb. demography does not have to be destiny if you change course. and the bath we could take is to allow for strategic reform of our immigration laws, to bring young aspirational people to rebuild the demographic pyramid and make the entitlement system secure and jump-start our economy in a way that will create uplifting of our hopes and dreams and also directly impact, immediately impact economic growth. >> u.s. economic growth and immigration policy, former florida governor jeb bush on immigration wars. saturday at 8:15 eastern. part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span2.
president barack obama is going to the argon national laboratory out of side chicago today. he will ask congress to fund for research into clean energy technologies. the president proposed the idea of an energy security trust last month in his state of the union address. today he put as price tag on it. the associated press reports $2 billion over 10 years. the white house said the research would be paid for with revenue from federal oil and gas leases on offshore drilling and would not add to the deficit. in a moment some of coverage today from the 40th annual cpac committee. that is the convservative political action conference hosted by the american conservative union. find all the coverage online at our website this morning businessman donald trump spoke about manufacturing in the u.s. here is a brief look. >> by fixing the economy we're able to solve the problems that we really do
need to solve and immediately as a nation. medicare, medicaid, social security. they all become affordable when we become a wealthy country again. you know, part of the reason that the republicans and even the democrats, they're all talking we have got to cut, we have got to cut, because our country isn't doing it. we're not cutting the mustard. we're not doing it. new technology has shown that we have tremendous wealth right under your feet in the form of energy. right under our feet. north dakota is a great example. [applause] we're not allowed to go and get it. so we go to the opec nations that think we happen to be, because, they're all friends of mind. i know them all. they think they're stupidest people on earth. they can't believe they're getting away with what they're getting away with, we could become so easily
the energy capital of the world. so what i say is this. we have to start building things. we have to start manufacturing, not just taking care of people, not just taking care in terms of health care. that is not manufacturing. that is money going out. we have to bring money in. this country has to start building things again. we have to take back our jobs from china. we have to take back our jobs from other places. [applause] when apple talks about apple, building all of this stuff, and we're all so proud of apple, they build virtually 100% of their product in china. so china should be more proud of apple than we are to be totally honest with you. we have to start manufacturing and building again and we have to make america great again. our problems will be solved. thank you very much. it's a great honor. thank you. >> senate republican leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky is vowing to repeal
president barack obama's health care law. he spoke this morning at the conservative political action conference. standing next to a stack of 20,000 pages of health care rules and regulations. we're going to show you his comments now. he spoke for a little over 15 minutes. [applause] ♪ . >> well, good morning, everyone. it's good to be here. i want you to take a look at that stack of paper behind me. it's the most powerful argument yet against obamacare. [applause] what you are seeing is 20,000 pages of rules and
regulations. 20,000 pages. and if you think that's bad, wait until they try to fix it. [laughter] on wednesday we had a vote in the senate to defund this monstrosity. every single republican voted to defund obamacare. [cheers and applause] and of course every democrat voted the other way. and that's what these democrats voted for. this monument to liberalism right here behind me. they're going to the have a lot of fun explaining that to their constituents. i can tell you that. this law is a disaster.
anybody who thinks we've moved beyond it is dead wrong. obamacare should be repealed, root and branch. [applause] and i want you to know we're not backing down from this fight. it's an honor to be here. always is. so i want to thank al cardenas for inviting me and all the hard work he put into this year's event. as usual al and his team have put together a fantastic slate of speakers and in keeping with the theme of this year's cpac they have all asked us to point the way forward. that means it won't be a lot of looking back this year at cpac. and speaking for myself i couldn't be happier about that. we've had a tough election last november and it's perfectly appropriate to
study what happened. there are a lot of lessons to be learned and ideas to look at. but i bet you're like me. i'm a little tired of the hand-wringing. conservatives were never meant to be part of the crybaby caucus. i know folks have a lot of opinions about what happened in november but seriously, how many conferences, and lunch panels do we really need to have about it? i'm starting to wonder if the caterers union is behind it. [laughter] back home in kentucky parents have a way of teaching their kids how to deal with adversity. if you get your tail whipped, you don't whine it. you don't look for somebody to blame. you stand up and punch back. [applause] if you hadn't noticed the folks who won last year's
election didn't waste a whole lot of time on a victory lap. they got right back at it. these guys are well-organized, they're well-financed. they're ruthless, and if you don't put this election behind us soon, they're going to eat our lunch again. so let me just add my voice to the post-election chorus and say this. it is time to unite. [applause] and it is time to get moving. if you've got good ideas keep them coming. we always need new thinking in our party but if you believe in conservative principles and you believe in your heart that the direction barack obama wants to take this country is wrong it's time to stand up together and punch back. [applause] now, the mainstream media loves nothing more than to sow division among
conservatives. they love it when we take shots at each other. it gets more coverage than a d.c. snowstorm but unity is strength, and if you need any proof of that, just ask yourself how we ended up with government-run health care? party unity is the reason we came within one vote, just one, of stopping obamacare on a cold christmas eve morning three years ago. but it's also the reason it passed by just one vote. every republican against it. every democrat for it. one vote was the difference between this stack of regulations and the alternatives. so we need every vote we can get and we need every seat we can get. but let me tell you what that doesn't mean. it doesn't mean we need to dilute our principles more than ever, we need the kind of constitutional conservatives we've got in the senate who have been really bringing the fight to the left.
[applause] and i'm going to mention my kentucky colleague rand paul as an example of that. [applause] he's a perfect example of what i'm talking about. he's a warrior and we need more warriors. [applause] which leads me to my next point. as conservatives we should never be on defense about our principles or our priorities. don't let anybody tell you that democrats have the upper hand on the issues. i don't care what the polls say. i mean don't tell me republicans are the party of millionaires and billionaires when obama's campaign arm is charging people half a million dollars for a meeting over near the white house. [applause]
we all know so-called wall street street reforms are embraced by wall street but feared by main street. fortune 500 ceo's embrace his tax hikes while small businesses shutter their windows. we're for millionaires and billionaires? come on. don't tell me democrats are the ones looking out for working families. the only thing this administration's economic policies have accomplished when it comes to class is to insure that the poor stay poor. [applause] s and that the middle class lose their ability to become rich. and that the richest among us are forever insulated, forever insulated by a government that protects them from failure. ladies and gentlemen, never before has there been so
little risk that rich could become poor, or that poor could become rich. don't tell me democrats are the party of compassion. if you ask me, the liberal idea of helping the poor was to lot more like fly paper than a safety net. [applause] we're concentrated on enabling dreams. they're focusing on managing expectations. don't come to me with that and tell me republicans out of ideas when the entire democratic agenda was done in the truman administration. we're in the days of ipad and they haven't had a new idea since days of studebaker. don't tell me the we're the parity of intolerance,
nearly two years before an election some left-wing super pac is sending out racist tweets about my wife for the supposed crime of being born in another country. [applause] so i want to pause on that point. let me tell you something about my wife. my wife, elaine chao, was the best labor secretary we ever had. [applause] you may not know that she came here in the hull of a ship, a freighter. her folks couldn't afford an airplane ticket. she was eight years old when she got here. she couldn't speak a word of english. she worked hard her whole life pursuing a dream and she achieved that dream. it's one of the principle
reasons i fell in love with her. and it is the main reason she's a conservative. my wife is an american success story. [applause] and look, anybody who has got the nerve to question her patriotism doesn't know what tolerance is, do they? [applause] and don't tell me, don't tell me, they're the party of education and choice. today's democrats will fight tooth and nail to protect bad teachers from being fired and they will -- [applause] and they will make, they will fight even harder to make sure inner-city parents don't have a choice to send their kids somewhere else. [applause] don't, don't tell me. misery we see in so many cities in this country, especially among the poor, it isn't the result of the
free market. it's the result of failed government programs. [applause] and we all know detroit wasn't run by a republican. and don't tell me democrats represent the interests of young people. washington democrats stand around take a look-out guy at a bank robbery. pretending nothing's wrong. even as the medicare and social security you're all paying for goes broke. don't tell me today's democrats are the party of fairness when public sector unions are getting benefits that are nearly 50% higher than the private sector. [applause] and these are the private sector workers who are paying the salaries of the public sector workers. and they spend millions of those dollars on union dus that are used to attack anybody who dares to even question, even question the
logic of all of that. finally, don't tell me democrats are the party of the future when their presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a rerun of "the golden girls". [laughter] [applause] we had rand paul. we have marco rubio. we've got paul ryan and a slew of smart, young, and energetic governors ready to take america into the future. [applause] and, the other guys? they got hillary and joe biden. [laughter] so don't tell me, folks, don't tell me, we are the party of compassion. we are the party of immigrants. we are the party of hard-work being taxpayers. we are the party of mobility, opportunity, growth, life, liberty, optimism, and
inthey vision. [applause] -- innovation. and look, it is time we started acting like it. and once we do we'll have our comeback. [applause] now i know that some on the right have argued in recent months that the republican party is stuck on austerity. that all we do is talk about cuts. that we don't talk enough about the middle class. well like them i believe that those who stand to benefit most from the restraint of government are the poor and the middle class. but i also know that the only people who set policy are those who win elections. we're not going to do it by dropping a policy paper in everybody's mailbox. there is plenty of openness to new ideas, i assure you but momentum comes first. and over the past few weeks, we've seen how it's done. with small victories that become bigger ones.
with conservatives who can articulate the enduring principles of constitutional conservatism and apply them to a rapidly-changing society. last week rand reminded the world that politics isn't just about tactics. [applause] actually it isn't just about ideas either. it's about standing up for your values and your principles. it's about courage. it's about courage. [applause] we don't revere the founders just because they devised a brilliant system of republican self-government. we revere them because they put skin in the game. [applause] they taught us by exam bell that this experiment in self-government would endure if courageous men and women continued to defend it.
in season and out of season. that's what rand reminds us last week and it was truly inspiring. ♪ . [applause] and that's what make this is moment such a golden opportunity to get conserve messages out there. hear is the dirty little secret about liberalism. it can't last. it can not work. [applause] today's, look, we all know today's liberal has a two-word answer to every question. more government. but government, my friends, isn't the solution. it's a rest stop on the way to a solution and that's where conservatism comes in. for too long, for too long, democrats have prefered the thrill of political victory to the hard work of updating the creekky institutions of
the great society for the age of the ipad. but we can do it. we can update these institutions because we're not beholden to any special interests. our political power base isn't the labor unions. it's the constitution. [applause] that should give everyone of us hope, not only for our party but for our country because updating these institutions isn't just an economic imperative, it's a moral one. you and i know that the growth of government isn't a sign of political might. it's a sign that people are hurting out there, and government simply can't provide the answer to their problems. so in some ways obama's agenda has been making the conservative argument for us. the and when the time comes for reform, and it will, we need to be ready with answers. but i completely reject the notion that we have a winning message for an
electorate that doesn't exist anymore. look, opportunity, growth, community, self-government, faith, family, life, innovation, choice, and freedom in all of its varieties. these things never lose their worth, or their power to motivate, and to inspire. society may change. demographics may shift, but the principles that make up a free and prosperous society never do. and conservatives, we own these principles. we own them. [applause] look if we're confident of that we'll win every day of the week. friends, this is a moment of renewal. i truly believe it.
i've been waging a fight on behalf of the first amendment for a long time. it's been a tough battle. and most of the time i've been in a very distinct minority. but i've always known that it was the right cause. because the constitution doesn't say you can abridge speech if it's during an election year, or if it's coming from a businessman whose politics you don't like. it says you can't abridge speech period. period. [applause] so i thought a victory here, a setback here, i frankly just kept at it. you know what? the courts started coming my way on a number of these cases and slowly but surely the principle i've been defending all these years is being vindicated. we've taken the same approach to obamacare. we gave it everything we had. everything we had. and we just barely lost the legislative fight. the supreme court ruling
last summer, frankly was another blow. but we can't just stand by and look at that assault on liberty behind me and do nothing. we're not going to stand by and look at this assault on liberty and do nothing. so ladies and gentlemen, if there were ever a symbol of what we're fighting against, this tower, right here, is it. [applause] and grounded in the principles that unite us we'll fight this and every other assault on liberty that the left throws at us until we restore the american ideal. [applause] we may have to go around the media. their filter, to reach an audience. we'll probably be called obstructionist.
some will call us radical, but if you're confident, and you stay true to our principles, and you lay a firm foundation that's needed, that's the way to renew american society. as -- [applause] because you see what happens, small victories lead to bigger victories. and then the renewal will come. and before you know it, we'll be back. you play not seem like it now but we're actually winning. we have entered a new phase. so pick up the gauntlet, my friend, and run. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ . [applause]
>> new hampshire senator kelly ayotte spoke this morning at cpac. we'll show you as much as we can until we have live coverage of mitt romney's cpac speech. >> well, good morning. >> good morning. >> how are you doing today? excellent. i want to thank representative diaz for that kind duck unshun and i'm so pleased to be here with you today. i also want to thank my colleague, senator mitch mcconnell, for his strong conservative leadership in the united states senate, advancing republican values. [applause] we gather here today at a watershed moment for america.
our country is facing great challenges. and many americans wonder, will america continue to be as ronald reagan so eloquently described it, a shining city on a hill? like you, there is so much that keeps me up at night. let motel you about some of the things that keep me up the a night. too many americans are out of work. federal regulations are strangling businesses. obamacare is increasing health care costs. and stopping so many of those businesses from hiring. and i come from a small business many faly. i know what that's like. i know how hard our small businesses work. we have a broken tax code. [applause]
and the president and senate democrats, they just want to keep increasing taxes, making it harder and harder for our small businesses to hire and grow and put people to work in this country. our nation is drowning in debt. we have had four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. we're a trillion dollars in hock to china. and i'll tell you all why i ran for office. i am blessed to be the mother of two wonderful children, kate, who is eight, and jacob, who is age five. what is happening in washington is not only that we're spending, not just that we continue to spend
money that we don't have, but we are essentially robbing our children of the american dream. [applause] i know you have heard at this important conference, about these fiscal challenges, and you have heard it from great leaders who have spoken before me, and you will hear it up from great leaders who will speak after me. i agree with them. that we need to fix the fiscal mess that we are in. and if we do not get this right, then america's greatness is truly endangered. but today, today, i want to speak with you about another grave threat that our nation
faces. this is an issue that keeps me up at night and that is the security of our nation. [applause] i have a simple question for all of you. how many of you believe that radical islam is a threat to our way of life? [applause] raise your hands if you can believe that. well, i agree. i'm deeply concerned, with what is happening around the world. if america fails to lead, we will create a vacuum that will empower extremists and
make america less safe. [applause] let's start with the ayatollahs in iran. iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. iran has supported violent extremists in iraq, in afghanistan, who have killed our troops. the regime funds violent terrorist organizations such as hezbollah and hamas. iran provides weapons and training to baashar al-asad, to use the weapons to murder his own people. . .
i don't believe it either. let me tell you what happens if iran gets a nuclear weapon. there will most certainly be an arms race in the middle east. because the sunni arab countries won't allow the shia persians to have a nuclear weapon, and less they have the very same capability. and a nuclear arms race in the
world's most volatile region would be like lighting a match and the tinderbox. and here's my biggest fear of all. it's not that iran will put a nuclear weapon on the end of a missile. my biggest fear is that they will give this nuclear technology to a terrorist organization. [applause] and what have we seen from the obama administration? the obama administration is sending the worst signal to the ayatollahs, at a most critical time. we talk, they enrich.
they don't take us seriously. and this leading from behind strategy, it isn't working. think about the message that we are sending. in iraq, the president ignores the advice of his commanders, his own commanders, and rushed to the exit. and what was the result? al qaeda is making a comeback in iraq. and iran has become an important player in iraq. in syria, we sat on the sidelines while over 70,000 syrians were slaughtered. seeding our policy to the vetoes of the russians and the chinese and the united nations to a bunch of united nations bureaucrats. [booing] and in afghanistan, the
president has undercut his commanders time and time again. in libya, the administration again lead from behind, and never took steps to secure gadhafi's weapons stash. and do you know where those weapons are now? they are in the hands of islamic radicals in mali, egypt, and syria, used by terrorists to harm us and our allies. and this administration has repeatedly undercut israel. how do you think our strong allies, israel, feels at one of the most critical times in the history of its country? for israel, this is life or
death. iran's leaders have said that they want to wipe israel off the map. and israel has rightly vowed never again. [applause] bin laden is dead, but -- yes. [applause] and we're glad about that, but make no mistake. al qaeda is very much alive. yet what has this administration's response been during the last week when we captured osama bin laden son-in-law? capture him overseas. let's understand who this individual is. this is a man who was sitting next to osama bin laden the day
after september 11, the attacks on our country that murdered so many americans. he was sitting next to them failed, and do you know what he said then? he threatened, the storm shall not stop. especially the airplane storm. he advised muslims, children and opponents of the united states not to board any aircraft and not to live in high rises. he's linked to the murder of at least one of our marines and an attacking us and our allies. and after he spent time with osama bin laden, he fled, guess where? tehran. and he's charged with conspiring to kill americans. unbelievably, instead of taking this foreign terrorists the
guantánamo bay, holding him in military detention, what does the administration do with him? they bring into new york city right near where our country was attacked. they brought him to a civilian court. they gave him a lawyer, and they told him you have the right to remain silent. it is shameful. as if he's some kind of common criminal who robbed a bank. we all know that it took years to gather the intelligence that led to getting osama bin laden. what intelligence did we lose when this administration read this terrorist is miranda rights? [applause]
this is clearly a political decision by our attorney general, and not a decision based on gathering intelligence and protecting our great country. so what is the answer where we find ourselves at a dangerous time in the world? let me share some of the insight from one of our greatest presidents, a very frequent speaker at cpac, ronald reagan. [applause] when president reagan saw evil in the world, he wasn't afraid to confront it. we all remember, famously, when he went to berlin and called president gorbachev to tear down
this wall. it's very hard to imagine our current president standing up to the world bullies in the way that president reagan did. can you imagine that? i certainly can't. and look how far we have fallen from president reagan's legacy. our allies feel uncertain, and our enemies feel emboldened. that's what happens when we lead from behind. and one of the best examples i can tell you of leading from behind is what happens in benghazi. [applause] you know, the mainstream media didn't want to talk about it.
four brave americans, including our ambassador, were murdered by terrorists. can you imagine if this had happened under the bush administration? would this not have been a huge story? absolutely. not a doubt in my mind. what happened in benghazi is a serious national security failure. [applause] and let's be clear. the administration did not and still does not want to come clean with the facts. however, we did push, in congress, and what did we learn? we learned that secretary of state hillary clinton never even
saw the cables from her own ambassador that said very clearly that the conflict could not withstand a coordinated attack. she said she never saw cables describing the prior attack on the conflict. she claims that she never knew about requests for additional security from our own people, from our people on the ground in her own agency. yet she said in her senate testimony that she was clear eyed about the risks in libya, clear eyed. how could she possibly say that she was clear eyed when she never even reviewed the cables from our own ambassador. it's outrageous. [applause]
how could it be that on september 11, of all days, of all days, when we think about the vigilant that we should be outcome on september 11, that we were unable to provide military assistance to our fellow americans that were under attack when the attack occurred over seven hours? how is it that? and because we wouldn't let this go, and we still won't let this go. [applause] what did we learn? we learned that this is not a spontaneous reaction to a hateful video. we now know that ambassador susan rice his explanation was simply false. and we also know that the
president's explanation to the american people for nearly two weeks after this attack was absolutely wrong. [applause] and, unfortunately, we still haven't gotten all the answers of what happened. i want you to know that we will keep pushing. i will keep pushing to get to the bottom of this debacle. [applause] let's vow here today that we never let a tragedy like this happen again. [applause] there is always a temptation to
rationalize and discount people. to disengage, to draw within ourselves, to isolate. and that temptation has existed within every generation. as ronald reagan once said, whether we like it or not, it is our responsibility to preserve world peace, because no one else can do it. [applause] and if there was ever a time in the history of our country to follow the path created by our great president ronald reagan, is now. ronald reagan stood for peace,
brute strength. he stood for a strong american military that was second to none. [applause] and ronald reagan had a clear moral vision for america. president reagan was once famously asked how does the cold war and? and without hesitation he said, we win, they lose. [applause] in our struggles with radical islam right now, that's how it has to be. we win, they lose.
[applause] let's work together to continue the legacy of ronald reagan, and make sure that america remains safe and strong. may god bless you and the greatest country on earth. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> former florida governor jeb bush speaks at cpac tonight. he is the reagan keynote speaker but we have live coverage at 8:45 p.m. eastern over on c-span. mr. bush only wrote a book on immigration policy and will have
comments about saturday night at 8:15 p.m. eastern on booktv. we are waiting for live coverage of that ron expected to make remarks fairly shortly at cpac. when he does will bring to life in the meantime from this morning businessman donald trump at cpac. ♪ [applause] >> wow. thank you very much. and he did very well on the apprentice, i have to tell you. very talented guy. our country is in very, very serious trouble. we owe $17 trillion, and we have more than a 1 trillion-dollar yearly deficit. that means we losing numbers that nobody has ever heard of before, anywhere. any country, nobody has ever
heard of numbers like this. likewise, the republican party is in serious trouble. the good news is that the country has tremendous untapped potential. absolutely tremendous. the republican party, i can almost say, it's going to be a little bit tough, and especially as you get more and more conservative. they get nasty. they don't like to hear what we have to say. and it's not easy. we have to get the momentum back, and we have to give it back quickly, before it's too late, before the place that incredible potential that we still have. we have to get back. now, the president is given sadly unprecedented media protection. it's incredible when you see what's going on, it's absolutely incredible. with the republicans, especially
as you get more and more conservative in your thinking and your thought, it's really just the opposite. as republicans, if you think you're going to change very substantially for the worst, medicare, medicaid and social security, in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you're going to win elections, it's just really is not going to happen. the way we solve our problems, because polls have come out, even the tea party, which i love so dearly, 78% of the people said levi medicare, my medicaid, my social security alone. that's the tea party. so what we have to do, and the way we solve our problems is to build a great economy.
we don't have a great economy right now. china has. other people have, other countries have. we don't have a great -- we don't make things anymore. we were a great great, great manufactures. we don't make anything anymore. we buy from other country. not only china, all of the world we buy. we have to rebuild our economy. and we have to do it again. we have to make america strong again and make america great again. [applause] thank you. now, this is a hard one because when it comes to immigration, you know that the 11 million illegals, even if given the right to vote, you will have to do what's right, but the fact is, 11 million people will be voting democratic. you can be out front, you can be the spearhead, you can do whatever you want to do, but
every one of those 11 million people will be voting democratic. just the way it works. and you have to be very, very careful. because you could say that to a certain extent the odds are not looking so great right now for republicans voucher on a suicide mission. you were just not going to get those votes. i said to myself, why aren't we letting people in from europe. i have many friends, many, many friends, nobody wants to talk about this, nobody wants to say but i've many friends from europe. they want to come and. people i know, tremendous people, hard-working people. they can't coming. i know people whose sons went to harvard, top in the class, went to the wharton school of finance, great, great students. they happen to be a citizen of a foreign country.
they learned, they take all of our knowledge and they can't work in this country. we throw them out. we educate them, we make them really good. they go home, they can't stay here so they work from their country and they work very effectively against us. now, how stupid is that? top of your class at harvard and you get thrown out of the country. so something has to happen. you've been reading about the white house to her. now, i suggested that acts of newt gingrich suggested, i thought us are nice of him to do, i do know anything about it but he volunteered that i would pay for it for the entire year. [laughter] i said that's okay, somebody told welcome it was very nice, he's a friend of mine and he's a member of a great club right down the road i happen to own, so i love him. [laughter] anybody with a number of my club, i love. may be president obama should join one of my clubs.
i would love him. [laughter] but that's a sad thing. now, i think it's going to be reinstituted, but i was certainly be willing to do it. out to be something small but it's emblematic. a couple of years ago i saw major, major steak dinner. it was in a tent on the white house lawn. a bad tent, probably a tent that the guy who owns a tent made a fortune. probably rented it for one night ththe more than a college. and that i said to myself here's china in a tent. at opera, i called the white house can some and a very welcome very high positioned, and i said, look, i will offer free of charge to build the most beautiful ballroom there is in the country anywhere. i will do it. it will cost anywhere from 50-$100 million to i will do it. you can get the greatest architect. to make it perfectly sympathetic with the white house of the architecture but it will be fabulous. they said thank you very much.
what an awesome. we never heard from them again. that's the problem with apache. that's a small thing but that's the problem with that country. and that's what happens, you don't hear from people. now, when you get right down to it from the standpoint of conservatives and republicans, you've got to win elections. when you have people about our well-meaning, but governors say it's the stupid party, and i heard that statement. i said, what a horrible statement to make. what a horrible statement. because that's a state and it's going to come back and haunt you when the democrats start using the. and just to change that and he had to change the thinking. or when i somebody and i watched somebody who spends $400 million on campaigns with perhaps the worst ads i've ever seen. i mean, they did ads on obama that i thought he was being paid
for by the obama campaign. it was so incredible. do you member the gam tamest superhero at? people want a superhero. they made obama -- it was great but i said what a great and obama did. and i said oh, oh, my, that was done by the republican. so when you spend $400 million its affiliate and you don't have one victory, you know there's something seriously seriously wrong. now, i've made over $8 billion. in fact, was thinking of running i actually filed my financial statement. a lot of people were surprised. but more than that, i've employed tens of thousands of people. and yet i am continually criticized by total light weights -- [laughter] all over the place. it simply the. it really is unbelievable. [applause] you see these guys, you see these guys on television, they
can't buy a clean shirt and they are saying donald trump? these nothing. i'm saying, i've employed thousands and thousands of people so i'm proud of what i've done. and i think if mitt romney made one mistake, and i like mitt romney a lot, but if he made one mistake, it's that he didn't talk enough about his success. because honestly, people really want success. they want a leader who is successful. and mitt has done a great job. and i just feel that republicans, and mitt, and i told him this, didn't speak enough about the things he did, the great things. they were on the defensive instead of taking the offense. just recently i bought a club, 800 acres and middle of my enemy, an amazing place but it was improperly run for years and years. tiger woods just won the tournament this weekend, got record television rates. they did fantastic. it's an amazing place but i'm
going to fix. i'm going to make it incredible. i'm going to make that place incredible. that's what we have to do with this country. we've got to fix it. we've got to make it incredible. right now we are a laughing state. easy what's going on in afghanistan with karzai, i mean, he has no respect for us. in all fairness we are leavingcomes we probably said, wow and i'm going to be stuck here alone. but still, this guy, when i watch his moves, i just say how can leadership allow that to happen? with iraq, we spent $1.5 trillion, 1.5 trillion, we lose lives, great, great young wonderful people. we lose so much. what do we have? nothing. we have nothing. when i heard that we're first going into iraq, some very smart people told me, well, we're actually going for the oil. and i said, all right, i get that, i get the.
there's nothing else, i did it. we didn't take the oil. then what i said, well, we spent 1.5 trillion, we should take 1.8 for i do know if you know the, the second largest oil reserves in the world after saudi arabia. so 1.5 trillion is nothing. 1.5 trillion, we should take it and pay ourselves back. [applause] what are we doing? what are we doing? what are we thinking? and this is whether it's obama or bush or whoever. what the hell are we thinking? and for those soldiers and the families, for those soldiers who were killed, i said we should pay those families money. and we should give them money. [applause] they lost their sons and their daughters, and a million dollars to a family is nothing compared to the kind of wealth that you were talking about over there. so write me if somebody running iraq that we don't even know who the hell it is, and i guarantee
is building his palaces and everything else, and we have nothing out of it. so it's just a very sad thing. you look at what happened with syria. you look at what's happening in south korea. i buy all my television some south korea. i'm sorry to say, i just ordered 3000 units. 3000 televisions, south korea, lg's, et cetera. we don't make them in the country in the. i get criticized, why don't you buy the new? you can't buy them you. we'll make televisions in this country. so north korea as it always does gets frisky and we pay them off and they get restless, right? north korea gets frisky. what do we get out of it? we send our beautiful aircraft carriers can we send our destroyers. every time you turn on the engine its $5 billion, right? and we send them down and we stop whatever's going to happen to south korea. what do we get out of it? we get nothing. the fact is, we are running by either very foolish or very
stupid people. what's going on in this country is unbelievable. our country is a total mess. a total and complete mess. and what we need is leadership. now, by fixing the economy we are able to solve the problems that we really do need to solve, and immediately as a nation. medicaid, medicare, social security. they all become affordable when we become a wealthy country again. you know, part of the reason that republicans and even -- they're all talking, we've got to cut, we've got to cut, because our country isn't doing it. we are not cutting the mustard. we are not doing it. new technology has shown that we have tremendous wealth right under our feet in the form of energy. right under our feet. north dakota is a great example of. [applause] we are not allowed to go and get
it. so we go to the opec nations that think we happen to be, because i hate -- they're all friends of mine, i do them all. they think we are the stupidest people on earth. they can believe what they're getting away with. and we could become so easily the energy capital of the world. so what i say is this. we have to start building things. we have to start manufacturing. not just taking care of people, not just taking care of it in terms of health care. that's not manufacturing. that's money going out. we have to bring money in. this country has to start building things again. we have to take back our jobs from china. we have to take back our jobs her mother places. when apple talks about apple building all of this stuff and we're also proud of apple, they build virtually 100% of their product in china. so china should be more proud of apple that we are to be totally honest with you.
we have to start manufacturing and building again. and we have to make america great again. our problems will be solved. thank you very much. it's a great honor. thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you very much ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> former florida governor jeb bush will speak at seatac tonight. is the reagan dinner keynote speaker and you can see live coverage at 8:45 p.m. eastern over on c-span. mr. bush has recent written a book on immigration policy. you could look for his comments about that saturday night at 8:15 p.m. eastern when he is our guest on booktv. we will take you live now back to the cpac conference. we understand introductions just under way from south carolina governor nikki haley,
introducing former governor -- there he is -- mr. romney. live coverage here now on c-span2. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you. thank you, please. thank you so much. [cheers and applause]
>> thank you so much. you touched my heart again. thank you so very much. what the site you are. what a privilege it is to be with you here again. how much i appreciate your earnest support and your help. thank you to governor nikki haley for her wonderful introduction. she's a woman of uncommon courage and conviction, and her principles guide her. we need more governors like nikki haley. [cheers and applause] and thank you for your support, from the very beginning. you were there from the very start, made a difference for me, your campaign gave me the early boost. you worked on the front lines, for -- covering my campaign. you made calls. i owe each of you.
with the help of so many of you i had the honor of becoming the nominee of our party for the presidency of the united states. i was given -- [cheers and applause] i was given the great privilege of experiencing america in a way that ann and i have never anticipated we would get to do. our fellow citizens opened up their hearts and homes to us. of course, i left the race disappointed that i didn't win, but, but i also left honored and humbled to have represented the values we believe in, and to speak for so many good and decent people. we've launched -- lost races before in the past but the setbacks prepared for larger victories, it's up for us to make sure we learn from our mistakes and my mistakes, and that we take events of that learning to make sure that we take back the nation, take back the white house, if the senate and put in place conservative principles.
[applause] now, it's fashionable in some circles to be pessimistic about america, about conservative solutions, about the republican party. i utterly reject pessimism. [applause] we may not have carried on november 7, but we haven't lost the country we love, and we have not lost our way. our nation is full of aspirations and hungry for new solutions. we are a nation of invention and reinventing. my optimism about america wasn't diminished by my campaign. in fact, it grew. it grew as i saw the people of america and heard their stories. i have seen the mayor determination in people like debbie summers of las vegas. she runs a furniture rental business for conventions there.
when 9/11 it, and when the recession hit, why, that hurt her invention business but she didn't give a. she didn't close down the business. didn't offer people. instead she taught people how to make furniture and/or business strives -- thrice but i've seen her perseverance. harold tam drove a truck for 10 years so he could go to college. he was studying some geological surveys and concluded there must be oil in north dakota. went to north dakota, and drilled a well, dry hole and told it was cost $2 million to drill a dry hole. he drilled 16 more. they called at harry's follows up there until 17. the ranges as they did with the sum is -- as much as 500 billion barrels of oil. [applause] >> i've seen risk taking.
the lumber business convinced a national paper corporation that they need to shut down their mail in new hampshire. into the breach stepped didn't smith. they part and invested everything they could find to buy the business. they saved their jobs and the jobs of the other other colleagues, and they grew sales now from 5 million a year, to 50 million a year. i've had met people of great faith, had the honor of being in the home of billy graham, the residents of cardinal dolan, and prayed with these men of god. i made he rose in our armed forces, men and women who re-signed with the national guard after multiple tours of duty in afghanistan, knowing that if they re-sign in all likelihood they would add another tour in the future. i met he was in the homes of the nation, single moms are working
two jobs so the kids can have the same kind of kids of the kids and coconut. data don't know what a weekend is because they have taken on so many jobs to make sure they can keep the house. these are patriotic people. the heart of america is good. our land is blessed by the hand of god. may we as a people always be worthy of his grace and his protection. [applause] like you, i believe that a conservative vision can attract a majority of americans, and form a governing coalition of renewal and reform. now, as someone who just lost the last election i probably not in the best position to chart the course for the next one, but with that being said let me offer this advice.
and perhaps because i'm a former governor, i would urge us all to learn lessons that come from somewhere greatest success stories, and that's 30 republican governors across the country. [applause] that they're winning elections, but more importantly they are solving problems, big problems, important problems. governor nathan deal in georgia security constitutional amendment to make sure they could have charter schools. governor rick snyder got in place right to work legislation in michigan. [cheers and applause] a number of these republican governors were able to secure toward reform, and the whole horde of republican governors inherited budgets that were badly out of balance and have replaced deficits with
surpluses. look, these, these governors have shown that they're able to reach across the aisle, offer innovative solutions, and then they're willing to take the heat that you have to take to do important things. we need the leadership and the ideas and the vision of these governors. we particularly me by the way different governors from the blue and purple states because those are the states we're going to have to win to give to get back the senate and the white house. so people like bob mcdonnell, scott walker, john kasich, susana martinez, chris christie, brian sandoval, is of the people we've got to listen to and make sure their message is heard loud and clear across the country. [applause] now we can also learn from the examples of principle and passion and leadership we've seen during these last few weeks here in washington, d.c. by a republican leaders. i may be a little biased, but i applaud the clear and convincing voice of my friend paul ryan.
[cheers and applause] now, if i were to offer advice to any person who was or became the president of the united states, it would be this. do whatever you can to keep america strong, to keep america prosperous and free and the most powerful nation on earth. it's no secret that the last century was an american century, and it's a secret that over the span of the coming century, that is not written in the stars. america's preeminent position is not guaranteed, and the consequence, if america were to become surpassed by another nation, would be devastating. why do i say that? is because the other leading contenders for world leadership, china, russia, the jihadists, not one of them except freedom as we understand it.
only america and american strength to preserve freedom for us and for the world and the people we love. [applause] freedom depends on america, and american leadership depends on a military so strong, so superior that no one would think to engage it. and our military strength depends on an economy so strong that it can support that kind of a military. and our economy depends on the people that are so strong, so educated, so resolute, so hard-working, so incentives, so focus on providing a better future for their children that the rest of the world looks at america with admiration and respect. that's the america we grew up in. and that's the america our children deserve. [applause]
think about america. just think about america. one nation, but ours -- what nation but ours would've enjoyed hegemonic military power for 25 years and never used it to seek revenge against its foes, or to seize precious natural resources from the week? what nation is the most philanthropic in the world, the first to wind up the wounds of injured from hurricanes and tsunamis and war? what nation is the largest contributor to the fight in africa against aids? who came to the rescue of europe went face its darkest hour? and came to the rescue's of others under the threat of tyranny, and korea, vietnam, panama, bosnia, kuwait, afghanistan, iraq. whenever you think of these, what if you think of these intervention, whatever, the impulse behind every single one of them is liberation, not
conquest. in all of human history, there has never been a great power that is so often used that power to liberate others to free the captives. this we must teach our children, and we must ourselves never forget. [cheers and applause] i'm inspired by a nation with people who live for something bigger than themselves. they are school, their family, their community, their faith, their country. i marvel at the brilliance and the sacrifices made by the founders. i'm proud of our immigrant heritage, proud that so many of
us, and of our ancestors came here because we wanted to be here, because they wanted to raise their families ar here and have a better future, because he wanted to worship their god here, according to the dictates of the unconscious. i was at a campaign stop in san antonio, texas. i met a guy named keyshawn. he came there in 1976 to escape the killing fields in cambodia. his first job was digging fruit. then he was a cab driver in new york city. 1976 i believe he, live in that he joined the campaign of george herbert walker bush as a volunteer. 13 years after coming to this country, he was given a job to work in the white house. in the state department. then he was appointed as a united states ambassador to the united nations. he said that whenever he stood to speak in behalf of this great country he would ask himself, in what other country in the world would an impoverished cambodian
refugee become its ambassador to that nation? this -- [applause] this nation began with an idea, a noble one. the idea was that every person is endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. freedom flows in american veins. it integrates our enterprises. it inspires us to live beyond ourselves. it calls us to care for the suffering and downtrodden. it has made us a great nation. a day history and duty summons us again. the country is imperiled by mounting debt. by failing and seditions, my families stretched beyond the limit, by schools failing to make the grade, and by public
servants are more intent on scoring political points than they are on national victories. [applause] each of us in her own way is going to have to step up and meet our responsibility. i'm sorry i won't be here as president, but it will be your coworker and i worked shoulder to shoulder along side you there countr.[applause] you see coming in the end, in the end we will win. we went for the same reason we have one before. because our cause is just and it is right.
look, i want to thank you again for your support and to help along the journey. ann and i will treasure the members we've had throughout our life. god bless you. god bless this great nation. we love you. thank you so very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> former florida governor jeb bush speaks a at seatac tonight that he is the reagan didn't keynote speaker. with live coverage for you at 8:45 p.m. eastern over on c-span.
>> i will keep is incredibly crisp is not something i almost never do. but i would just note this. are going to talk through what happened in the 2012 election. and i would say in doing that we are fighting against the basic human instinct not to re-examine painful events. but i have noticed that all successful organizations force themselves to answer those basic questions like why did we fail, what happened? the military first among those, in order not to repeat the mistakes. so each one of our panelists will get up and speak for seven
minutes, and then we'll have a roundtable conversation in which we get to the nub of what happened and suggests ways to prevent it from happening again. so with that, i want to introduce the great michael baroda knows more about politics and congressional districts in any of the american. out of 309 million americans, he knows the most. here he is. >> number one of 309 million americans. well, thank you very much, tucker, and it's nice to be here. to follow up on ryan. looking sometime in numbers guy. i like to look at the election numbers and i can't get anything more fun way to spend an evening than to stay up at night and do, i use red for democrats and blue for republicans. the county percentages for each candidate and so forth.
there's nothing like that. when you have any election to crunch, even one when your candidate lost is something interesting. one of the things that struck me about this election, the 2012 election, is that in many ways it resemble the 2004 election eight years before. in both cases you have an incumbent president winning with 51% of the vote. he is opposed -- he wins and 2004 by 51-40 margin when you around at the percentages. and 2012 by 51-47. the opponent in both cases is a rich guy from massachusetts, although they obtained their money in different ways. i'm reminded of a comment that margaret thatcher made on the floor of the house of commons, although i think i've got it slightly wrong. but she said basically there are four ways to make money. you can inherit money, you can make money, you can marry money,
and you can steal money. and the right honorable gentleman has done all for. but in this case, but there was one big difference between the 2004 and the 2012 election. and that was turn it. and turnout is kind of hard to gauge initially from an election because an american election, because of the state of california where republican employee unions counterbalance that takes five weeks for them to count all the ballots. it's about 12% of the country. we look at the final turnout figures for quite a while. takes five weeks in california. in brazil they do in five hours. but after all, brazil is a far less primitive place than california. the turnout was different but if you look at george w. bush in 2004, he won 11.5 million more votes and more popular votes than he won four years before.
that with an increase of 23%. john kerry also won 16% more votes than al gore had won four years before. it was a big increase, and that was i think a measure of enthusiasm, positive enthusiasm for bush, negative enthusiasm on the part of the democrats. that was represented a huge increase in turnout. in this election, rock obama received 3.5 million fewer votes than he received four years before. that's 5% decrease in votes. mitt romney received what, about 1 million more votes than john mccain. it was commonly said and reported that he received fewer popular votes than mccain. that's because of the delay in the california and some of the other west coast states in reporting their results, that
when the numbers finally came in, he did. obama clearly benefited from a superior microtargeting and turnout effort where building on what the bush campaign had done in '04, and then the substantial advances that the obama campaign made on that in a weight and working through the four year period, 2012 they used consumer preferences and things of that nature to identify both strong and wavering obama voters. and then they use personal contact to get in touch with them, cured with a message, geared towards the voters propensity. it was a sophisticated effort. obviously, republicans need to make substantial advances over their procedures in 2012, if they hope to win in a close election. you can see the results in the 12 target states, most of which have turned out increasing even though turnout nationally was
down 2%, and down and most of the non-target states. they turned out black, hispanic in gentry level voters, gentry liberal editor my friend joe cox and i think nancy pelosi, san francisco and you have the idea. so i think in a sense, i take the 2012 election result as kind of come as less of an enthusiastic endorsement of barack obama and more as a grudging acquiescence in his presidency. but on the republican side one has to say that the republicans do not have republican leaning voters, did not have the advantage in compared balance of enthusiasm that they had in the 2010 off your election. that simply was absent,
insufficient numbers. i don't believe that the obama campaign actually met their numbers. that is to say, i don't think they turned out as many people as they thought might be necessary to win. but it did turn out as many people as it turned out to be necessary to win and win florida with its 20 electoral votes by 1% of the vote. one of the interesting things about 2012 is that the presidential level, the numbers look like, a fair lot like 2008, particularly and the target states, reflecting the comparative advantage that the obama campaign had internet. as you get down the ballot, the numbers look increasingly like 2010 with a kind of republican advantage. republicans managed to boost some senate races that they ought to have one, and as they did in 2010, and so lack of
majority in the senate which is led by the philosopher harry reid. but they maintained by a large strengthen the house of representatives, losing only about eight seats. and a position of state legislatures were very strong. that position that they built up in 2010, they lost legislatures in maine and minnesota, but by and large can't legislatures that they one in 2010, and had the kind of advantage that they haven't had in state legislatures since the 1920s. so we are 25 states that have governors in both houses of legislature, controlled by republicans. they are not just small states. and 53% of the nation's population versus -- i believe it is 13 states with democratic governors or legislatures, 21% of the nation's population.
so let me just leave you with a final number out of the exit poll. the electorate that reelected obama when asked whether government should do more to solve problems or whether government is doing to me things better left to businesses and individuals, 52% government is doing too many things. 43% government should do more. ..
[applause] him >> thank you, michael. that was reassuring. now i want to bring up some one who has achieved the near impossible getting elected from new york state as a sincere out of a closet conservative and that will provide real lessons for the rest of us why. [applause] >> thank you all and good morning. it's an honor to be all but all of you this morning. thank you come tucker. yes it's true there are conservatives in the new york state and we are proud to be there. [applause] before i begin my comments this morning i but like to ask all of you to pause and remember and keep in your prayers the men and women who fight to keep us safe so that we can be here this morning. we thank them and our veterans and all of our military for their service. [applause]
as all of you know, 2,012th was a better year for republicans and or conservatives and as we reflect on the 2012 election i want to talk about a couple things, first what we know. we know very well now that we were beaten soundly both the social media and the ground game of barack obama. compare the rnc phone banks to the sophisticated plan of social media from barack obama and you begin to understand what the republican party was up against. the other thing we know, as michael just mentioned, turnout republicans lacked enthusiasm and energy. the discussion about why the that's for another day but right now we know in my county barack obama the one in a county and a town that had a 20% republican
enrollment favored barack obama one that town so we need to understand and look at why that happened and why we did not energize the republican voter. when you may not know about the 2012 election was hiding something to understand, and i'll get my case talking to all of my colleagues who lost the campaigns that were drawn against us or national campaigns so my opponent was virtually muzzled, he had an opportunity to debate me eight times and was virtually silent during the campaign. the campaign was run by the dccc, michael bloomberg, george soros'. they ran the campaign. what they did, and this was a lesson for republicans to understand what they are up against, they employed the use of fear. and as you know, the war against women was first and foremost in
the whole platform running against someone like me cite one you to think about this just for a moment. i am a woman that great a leap from high school in the 60's pity i'm the proud mother of six children, for two more girls, 13 grandchildren, four of whom are granddaughters. i graduated from law school at the age of 43 after i had my six kids, the first woman to ever hold a seat in congress for my district and yet -- [applause] thank you. what they portrayed me as is someone that was antiwoman. it is laughable but they did it successfully, and they did that by using fear tactics by making the voters afraid of what i would do and that so significant to the democrats are employing behavioral psychologists and the republicans don't understand what they are up against some of the employee fear and guilt. those of us that are successful if they want to make us feel
guilty and it's important, i think very important fact the republican party needs to get their arms around. so really the question is where do we go from here. what are we going to do about the situation in the last election? number one, first and foremost the republican party cannot be afraid of change. in fact if they do not embrace change, if they do not understand that the need to get away from the status quo, the party will become extinct. if they really have to learn how to inspire the american people, how to tap into that human spirit and with all of the respect i can muster from the party they have to understand the days of the good old party, the days of the establishment republicans are forever gone. [applause] women, minorities, latino,
african-american, in fact all americans are looking for a party that inspires, a party that gets the human spirit going. think about what rand paul did last week in his filibuster. [applause] she inspired the american people, the millions of tweets that act generated that is what we need to do more of and that's what the republicans need to understand. the republicans need to embrace these groups of people and make them understand they are a vital part of the party and we cannot be courting minorities or the efforts or the women's vote just around election de. these groups are vital parts of the republican party. they need a party they can look to and be excited about and the republican party needs to change its ways and embrace all of those groups as a part of the american fabric and with the need to do to become successful.
the other really important thing and what i feel so passionate about you'll hear them talking about what the republicans need to do to win the elections in this country and one of the things you hear is that we need to moderate. we need to move more to the center. we need to abandon our conservative principles. i believe that is absolutely the wrong way to go for the republican party. [applause] the strength of the republican party depends upon our conservative principles. those principles are the essence of what connects us to the american people. that is america, those conservative principles, that is consistent with our founding fathers and what makes this nation the greatest nation effort. now is the time for us to really emphasize and make every
american believe that our belief would make this country better. we are a party for all people. we believe the greatness of the nation doesn't lie in that bloated bureaucracy in washington. the greatness lies in every individual american citizen. that is what makes this country so unique and the greatest nation. [applause] we need to distinguish ourselves from the middle and from the progressive left. we need to emphasize the individual, emphasize personal freedom from emphasize smaller government and that is the way we will turn this economy around and how we will get this nation back on track. we are not going to settle for trillions of dollars of debt. we are responsible and want to make sure our kids get a better america than we were handed. now is not the time for us to apologize for being a republican and or conservative.
we should embrace those principles. we should be proud of those principles. [applause] that's right. and in fact, when we do that, we embrace the principles of ronald reagan, abraham lincoln, consistent principled conservative. that's what this party is about. we can't move to the center. we need to be solid and firm and what we believe in and stand for. in doing so, and i will end of this note, by adhering to our conservative principles, that is how we will win the elections and more importantly, and the reason all of you are in this room today is we will have a better he united states of america. our children and grandchildren will have access to more opportunities than we have and we will hand off to them a better place, a better country, it place that doesn't lead and
with death and that has a clear direction. that is what our legacy should be putting it so i am so pleased to be here with all of you this morning because i know that you love and care for this country. and i thank you for all you do for the conservative cause. may god bless all of you who love this country, may god bless our military and may god bless the greatest history in the world, the united states. thank you. [applause] >> it's possible there's someone in america who's covered republican politics at a higher level than john but i don't know who that person would be so we are really blessed to have his analysis. john from the the american spectator. [applause] >> and "national review." and thanks for all those fox viewers out there. tucker, i think you put me on
the agent scrap piece but that's okay. >> are you kidding? iowa to respect authority. [laughter] >> i have some final words for your publication in my talk. look, i know the cpac has some unfinished business from the election mulken yesterday at 3:00 there was a panel called should we call the political consultants now. [laughter] i am here to tell you i do not think we should go that far. i'm a compassionate conservative in that respect. but there is some explanation that needs to be made pity and that's why i think we all should understand something that has changed in american politics. joost the candidates would come and say i want to run the government like a business which was unrealistic because the government is not a business. it is certainly doesn't run on business principles. it probably can't. it's not going to be run like a business. but i will tell you what has
become a business in america. it's politics. there are an awful lot of politics on both sides of the aisle that drive a very good income from politics and it is vastly larger in what started years ago one of the principles of conservative as accountability. judging people by the results. for the consultant cannot be i don't think that has always been done in recent years. i think democrats and liberals have been a far better job of shall we say putting the consultants who don't work, who don't succeed into the minor league for a while until they can prove themselves again whereas consultants on the conservative for the republican side, well, they just seem to prosper in many cases. and while i don't think we should shoot all the consultants i think there are a lot of unanswered questions as to how in the world they are judged and how a party that believes in
competition and and all aspects of life somehow doesn't seem to apply that to political consultants as often as they should. now there's been some good work on this. tucker's daily publication, the daily collar, the "national review," other publications have started looking at this. you come as the consuming and media audience should demand more of this because unless we establish accountability of what goes right and what goes wrong in politics, we are going to get the same gang that frustrates you, which is to defeat. a couple things from the 2012 election that i don't think our mentioned enough, we have all heard about the deficiencies with african-american and hispanic voters. let me point out that the most precipitous decline in the republican vote in 2012 was among asian voters and they are not insignificant, they are 3% of the national electorate and some states that matter such as nevada and new jersey.
i have to tell you this is a constituency that conservatives should be able to appeal to and they have appealed to in the past. in 1993, george h. w. bush won the asian vote in fact he won a majority of it in a race where he only got 38% of the vote because of ross perot. that was before he realized the trade table wasn't just full of ryan glock's position. in 1996 bob dole lost to bill clinton badly but he carried the asian vote. things have been on a decline ever since then. the point that mitt romney managed to win only 26% of the asian vote. there are pockets of asian supporters in the republican party. vietnamese, filipinos. of a full-court press was made to appeal to the asian voters not only in english but the native languages and also to appeal to the basis of educational choice and opportunities and small business
with the exception in nevada the asian vote collapsed. now, micro targeting. we've heard from michael barone about the incredible efforts that the obama administration did to go into the microtargeting. one example of how they were added, a friend of mine a democratic lawyer in fairfax virginia showed up to the precinct before the election, she was handed an ipad and a clipboard and was told this is the precinct. she looked and said there are only two households on this. the four households these are the last people left we think we haven't reached and we have honed the message is based on the magazine subscriptions, what kind of car they drive, where they shop, whether they go to church or not, what kind of church, we have decided this is the message and the script that you have used on these hollis holds and it's to go out and get the voters. no one else will give you
another precinct in the afternoon. she went out and she found those voters that by the way for some reason they knew they were home and she found them and she got the votes. that's microtargeting. harold ford the former head of the democratic leadership council has said look of course obama had a more powerful message. but he also was able to find voters in states like ohio and florida and colorado that had never been found before and we have to emulate that to prevent any chance of success. lastly, there is one thing we do have to worry about. we are seeing a deterrent to change the rules of the game. it's not just michael targeting. it's an attempt to obliterate the system that we have in this country and to introduce a greater element of fraud. right now all of the liberal groups -- all of the liberal groups are trying to push for something called mandatory voter registration.
this would be a disaster. of course we have an antiquated registration system to the lobby of 2 million dead people. i don't support representation without restoration. [laughter] we have 2.75 million people in one state. we have one out of a voter registrations are inaccurate. the way to fix that isn't to throw away the whole registration system and take everyone from the driver's license list, everyone in the welfare list, everyone from the property owners list that will increase the number of registrations dramatically into would lead to a complete mess which is precisely what some people on the other side want. because out of that chaos can become confusion and doubt of that confusion can come mysteriously more votes. >> now all of this is going to come together this november because we have off-year e elections and i will tell you right now new jersey looks like chris christie's going to win a landslide election. that means the other high-profile race is going to be
in virginia. virginia is going to be very close election. the microtargeting that michael mentioned, that i mentioned is going to be in play. i already know and richmond there are organizers going through the neighborhood contacting voters and making sure the democratic message reaches them. the message to you today is this: if you want to be competitive in 2016, the road back begins this november here in virginia. if you when virginia, just like you wanted in 2009 after obama won a, you are back. if you don't come here is what i fear. the biggest weapon and the other side has is psychological warfare. appealing to you believe that you can't win. it's time to give up. there is no way you can possibly come back. the way to come back is to win and absorbable lessons of 2012 and use them in 2013 and the best place to begin that is right across the river in
virginia. [applause] thank you. the pulitzer committee makes a lot of mistakes but it isn't out of the park. as they did when they awarded the highest award in journalism to michael who is personally my favorite editorial cartoonist in the country and i speak for most in this room we are honored to have them in politics and also runs the editorial page of investors business daily as you may know. here he is. [applause] >> if there's any college journalism taking pictures come anyone joe biden staffers on both sides may tackle each other and force you to delete the pictures. i want to focus on three areas of the election dynamic. the media bias, demographics, the mitt romney campaign and other romney candidates.
how did in and competent president and a reckless administration with a dismal record remember when the white house was funneling with the question of are we better off? how did that administration get free elective? 80% unemployment the poverty rate increased from 39.8 million to 46.2 million. americans increased from 31.5 million to 46.4 million. the median income dropped 4.1%. families lost $4,000. federal expenditures grew from 2.9 trillion to 3.79 trillion. the deficit climbed. the national debt went up by $5 trillion. gas prices went up from a dollar 84 judd alan 2384 gallen. you've got obamacare, solyndra, the worst downgrade in history, the worst recovering american history. so how did the administration
has clearly demonstrated that isn't capable of doing its job get reelected? because of the mainstream media that is on a daily basis but is not capable of or not willing to do their job. [applause] >> the media bias had the message and deleting the president from damage. let me give you an example. last week the media reported unemployment dropped 7.7% for the two injured 36,000 that were added last month. but they didn't tell you was the two injured 96,000 people drive out of the work force. investors business daily did. the mainstream media didn't tell you that 60.6% of americans were working in 2009 but only 58.6% were working today. the average of 63%.
they didn't tell you that 10 million people that dropped out of the labour market or the rate is higher today almost four years after the republican then. they ignored the story is cutting ignored fast and furious and obamacare is not a test. the induce the premiums by $2,500. i didn't turn down the keystone pipeline, the republicans did. excluding lobbyists from policy-making jobs. i was surprised and disappointed over the release of the bomber. citizens united will allow foreign corporations to spend without limit to the elections. my mother was denied health insurance coverage when she was dying of cancer. benghazi and the most transparent administration in history. the media make it irrelevant. the overlooked the president's
shortfalls and defined mitt romney as a rich outsource or out of touch with the average man to defend capitalism. romney did a poor job of checking obamacare. attacking and defending capitalism. when he did, the media ignored him. talking about demographics, since he lost by as little as three and 50,000 votes the president got 51.7% or three injured 32 of the electoral college votes. but the popular vote was much closer. he got only 51% of the vote with only about of a third of the eligible electorate weighing in. that comes to almost 66 million votes. romney got 38.3% of the electorate, 206 votes of the electoral college and 47% of the popular vote which is about 61 million. this is the first time an
incumbent president has won the election to a second term with less votes than the first election. the biggest problem in that election as conservative and republican voters didn't show up to vote. now, consider this for a moment, 66 million votes to get elected president in a population of 315 million people. when you take the number of americans living in poverty, 46.2 million, 14.4 million union members, 15 million federal employees, 20 million state employees, 50 million local government employees now granted federal aid and entitlement, union membership and being a government worker does not guarantee the you will vote for one party or even that you will vote at all. but that environmental young voters, progressive issue
groups, 660,000 more hispanic vote and you get the picture. it's not a steep hill to climb to get to 66 million votes. here's a question that is a dynamic shift and graphics and they've reached the conservatives that have to make to accommodate this president was reelected with less votes than before. there is no question that a primary challenge for the gop candidate -- dever 2 million spent to define a romney in the electoral states of the campaign. romney suffered from being a rich person defending himself being a rich person. that said, in a free market economy. i also think the lack of boldness and direct criticism of the president heard the romney campaign. i don't watch professional football, instead on a miami dolphins fans. [laughter] the one thing they are great at is taking the lead in the third quarter and playing defense and
ultimately they lose the game. mitt romney had the lead after the first debate. he was confident but much less aggressive on the stage at each of the following dates. you can't fight by the markets of the queens very rules in a street fight. especially -- [applause] especially when the other side isn't playing by the rules and they are tagged teeming with the rest of the referee. the president -- [applause] and the media want you to believe that this constituted an overwhelming mandate a but the reality is this is the first time an incumbent president has won every election to the second term with less votes. and when you buy just the numbers, the elections merely preserve the status quo. the president receives 50 percent of the electoral vote, and that may seem large but almost 51% of the one-third
of the eligible electorate that's not much of a mandate. we elected the same republican majority in the house, the same speaker of the house coming into the competence of the senatorial campaigns we elected the same majority of senators, the same majority leaders as harry reid. so, i think what conservatives need to do are three things. you need to retake education from the institution of academia and how your education where they transform educational and the social engineering and revisit history and revise it. conservatives need to invest entertainment and popular culture. they have to demand media reform. conservatives need to be bold to aid to have a better argument and a powerful ally, the truth, demand the truth. [applause]
>> all right. thank you very much. we have 18 minutes and 14 seconds to mull over with the conservatives ought to do next. i was struck by all of your remarks the emphasis on the romney campaign itself. michael mentioned it. but all i, just having covered the primaries, remember thinking i, like every person who's running very nice people, i agree with all of them. but i remember thinking a couple times hard to see any of these people getting elective really. and i'm wondering is their something the republican party is doing wrong in the way that goes about finding candidates? >> i think what one of the reasons that republicans had a weak field as i believe they did in the 2012 presidential election is it follows of the inclusion of the appeal of george w. bush. basically from 2000 to 2,006
republicans and many conservatives kind of work loyal to bush, they adhered to more less the program and the policies and putting things like the educational accountability, medicare prescription drug program which some conservatives objected to in the post. and i think there was a conservative case for voting for that bill and for legislating it. >> that is another panel. but basically the job rate really crumbled in 2005 as people watched on their tv violence in the streets of baghdad and new orleans and he never really recovered. the republican presidential candidates that rolled themselves in the bush image ended up not running, people like bill and george allen of course defeated in virginia in 2006 and the republican defeats in 2006 and in 2008 took a lot of potential candidates out of
the field like george allen for example, so i think you were operating in kind of a vacuum. i think that republicans have prospects for a much stronger field of candidates in 2012 and that people in the cpac audience will have heard from many of them at this gathering. >> is something wrong with the process itself? i feel like i know dozens of impressive conservatives who could maybe win a general election. is their something deterring them from getting involved? >> if you look at the national election and by ellen and general elections with the other side is doing is taking down that person personally. that is a tremendous burden when you ask someone to run for office they have to be willing to sustain that and i think that discourages what our elections have become. michael bloomberg in upstate new york invested half a million dollars in my race. what does he care about upstate
new york and so to ask a candidate to subject themselves to that i think goes to what we are seeing in terms of, you know, who is willing to take those hits to get to michael's point earlier, i think the republican party cannot be afraid of running someone who is a poor conservative -- core conservatives, who believes it and breathe it. you can't just get up and shot that you are conservative and then you believe in this country. it has to be more than that. as to be something in your gut. [applause] >> have you noticed that there was this -- i like romney as a person and i like him now to a i think that he's a good person. there's been subsequent to this election during the campaign what went wrong? nothing personal web but barack obama got reelected so maybe it is time to think through what went wrong with that specific campaign and candidate. the of this politeness instinct often prevents them from being
completely honest about what a totally mediocre effort that was. >> whatever criticism there is it is sometimes directed to the consultants but ultimately -- >> moving gough. >> when you founded the daily collar i think you saw the need for a slightly more greedy populace and i suggest that the republican party probably needs a more gritty populace approach dealing with the electorate and i will give you an example. there are a lot of strong conservatives out there that still pull their punches. i think after t.a.r.p. and after the meltdown of the 2008 financial system, after the failed stimulus there was room for a candidate to come forward and say the banks have become too big to fail. we don't own the banks anything. they are on dominating the economy, the other way around. and i think we should have gone after corporate welfare and because the obama solyndra program and other favors to friends was the end of corporate welfare. one of the things we know and by
the way the national committee's autopsy of the committee is coming out next monday, one of the things in the early draft, there were about 3 billion blue-collar and pink collar voters, people who were not professionals, people that have a degree who didn't vote in this election or voted for gary johnson, the libertarian candidate, or even a few of them voted for obama again. mitt romney was the antithesis of the populist candidate. and i think that hurt and i think not going after too big to fail and not going after the banks or corporate welfare sends a message to populace voters this is the party of the fat cats and we may say that we are conservatives but we are not looking out for you. >> by the way, you could defend -- you would be defending the free market. there is a difference. the most important thing the republican candidates need to do to appeal to the voters that didn't show up in 2012 was a big thing. pro-business is in the same
thing as being a conservative necessarily or pro-market. >> when i saw your cartoon of the press pumping the like of obama, probably the most evocative image i have seen since i was at the lubber actually -- >> we sketched out on the floor of the democratic convention and we witnessed it every single day. >> that is the world i live in and i can agree i've seen a lot in my time and it's revolting. but it's also hilarious your depiction of it and i thought you know what, the conservatives can get a sense of humor. maybe they like it you are not humorless and self-service. >> let me tell you that the democrats do that's very, very good. redundancy, concise logan's. they have their leadership meetings. they figure out what the word is going to be whether it is balance, what is your slogan it's going to be, they repeat it like a mantra every single day until they get to the weekend and repeated in the news shows.
they have redundancy. it's like the urban mess. it doesn't matter if it is true or not if it is repeated and concise it catches on and becomes the truth. republicans need to be more conservative, the need to be bold. they shouldn't be afraid to take their gloves off and point out the truth when you have an incompetent administration the string horribly. anybody can drive down the street to my favorite restaurant that has been around for 30 years closed down and see the vacant buildings, vacant businesses. it's not wrong to point that out and say this is the reality. we need bold candidates willing to do this. and john is entirely right. this is the party of the free market individual responsibility and liberty and freedom they should focus on that and not have a bhatia of inciting in the beginning on those very issues.
i think they have every right. >> so why are republicans varying the interest? mike clay required by law to ask this question and i know there are panels around this country but i can't help but i'd like to ask each person do you have specific recommendations to the republican party to appeal to the many demographic elements you'll mentioned who have been redeveloped by the party, black voters, hispanic voters come asian voters, women, etc.? >> let me check the word in defense of mitt romney -- >> to life and had his good points in the campaign. >> the first debate she showed up unannounced in solyndra so the press wouldn't know about it in advance, that was a good campaign. i think that he did about as well as -- i think he did as well as any of the possible nominees would have done. but what do republicans need to do. i think in part they need to
show, and here i criticize romney more appreciation of human dilemma situations. rahm me talk about self deportation to get in fact he was referring to a genuine phenomenon. the pew hispanic center as somewhat reluctantly concluded that there's been a net migration from god united states to mexico on balance since 2007 since the housing crisis, so something like self deportation is in fact taking place, but it's an abstract term and it's a term that doesn't show any sympathy for the people involved. if you look at the numbers again, but realty track numbers of foreclosures and the period after the collapse of the housing market in 2007 to 2010 and you look at the counties where they are, they are an employer in california, clark county, mara kaput county, arizona, i estimate about a third of those foreclosures were
hispanic. they were people in some cases that had been cudgeled into getting mortgages by spanish speaking people, mortgage originators from countrywide and so forth. we don't need a w-2, we don't need a downpayment. we are going to put you in this house for three injured $50,000 will be worth 600 a couple of years and you will have a quarter million dollars those people lost out and they had a dream. they may have a chance to get some cases but the dream was shattered. let's show an appreciation of how some people's dreams were shattered by bad government policy. not by the free-market. and let's show the people that we have policies that could help them choose their future and achieve their dreams. >> as you understand what you're saying i don't think that james has ever been quoted approvingly at cpac but he did say one thing
to me drop on an airplane he turned to me and said these were several in my head ever since. you know, if people think you hate them, they don't like a. >> we are going to break away from this record portion cpac and to keep at the moment life event. the congressman from louisiana is the chairman of the republican study committee. >> for putting this on the and it's an honor to be here with so many conservatives standing up to fight for the constitutional freedom that we hold so dear. i think we all know right now what is happening in washington, d.c. and the threat of the american dream that is under attack. and i think if you look at the results in the election, obviously we were incredibly disappointed about the results of the presidential race, you know, everybody was hoping there would be a calgary coming and we would take the senate and ultimately what we saw the results, we realized there is no
calvary coming but there is one thing that the american people did while they reelected barack obama, the american people also really elected a conservative republican majority to still stay in the house to check the balance against the radical agenda of barack obama. and we take that seriously. [applause] and so if you look, i'm honored to be the chairman of the republican study kennedy this term. we have 171 members. it's the largest caucus and all of congress and we are committed to fighting and defending the conservative principles that we all believe in and pushing back on the radical agenda that's coming out only by barack obama, but all of his radicals, appointees, all of these different cabinet secretaries from the epa, the national labor relations board, department of interior. a sound like every federal bureaucrat is trying to attack the free enterprise system and any company that happens to make a profit. but if you look at what the election was really about and you talk about the people fought about the election, people wanted us to focus on jobs in
the economy. people wanted us to control spending. and so, when you look at the results are of the first term of barack obama obviously if you look at the results, the price of gas is up. u.s. energy reduction of federal land is down. federal spending is up, yet household income is down. taxes are up, but small-business start-ups are down. i think to see the picture that the results of the last four elections didn't work out well for the middle class. and yet this president was really liked it and so it shows us that we have a lot of work on our hands to do. but i think it also shows us if you look at the conservative principles that we ran as the house republicans we ran on defending the constitutional principles to be we've and on repealing obamacare, we ran on balancing the federal budget and so right now we are sort of an impasse but let's look at president obama's agenda what did he leave out as his agenda.
he talked about the stimulus programs, the boondoggles like solyndra, he talked about taking away our second amendment rights that he wouldn't do to the [applause] of the president talked about continuing on the rampage of spending and borrowing and tax and. one of the honors he talked about the green energy agenda she wants to keep pushing the supreme energy and this whole idea of the federal government needs to get in the way of the carbon tax in place and make it harder for the manufacturing to go on in america and he talks about global warming in his inauguration. the president was running a trench coat it was so cold he was talking about global warming. just last week this is true, just last week a hearing on capitol hill on global warming was canceled because of snow in washington, d.c.. you can't make this stuff up. so i think if you look at what the american people want us to focus on they want us to get back to the basics and i think it starts with energy.
you can look at north dakota, the lowest unemployment is north dakota because of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling and this revolution that's been started it throughout the country. of course the president is trying to use the epa and some of the other agencies to shut that down. then you contrast that with the president's home state. illinois is like a liberal utopia. if you look what they put in place in terms of liberal policy and how has it worked out. over 9% unemployment. as you've got the highest budget deficit of any state in the country is the state of illinois. so, it just so happens north dakota is run by republicans and illinois is run by a bunch of liberals and as we are not going to let the president bring the kind of illinois and california tide of radical policies running jobs away, we are not going to let them continue to push that of america. so, let's talk about what can get the economy moving again? in my home state of louisiana, we have done it through energy production. if you look at so many states for increasing energy production, it's creating good
jobs. these are good, high-paying jobs. we did the president before as the other day that mengin light of the president i said you have a green light to keystone pipeline. with one stroke of the hen barack obama could create more than 25,000 american jobs. and yet he continues to say no to projects like the keystone pipeline. you know, he talks about all of the above, everything above and nothing below. he's against any kind of a fossil fuel development. i haven't seen him yet try to put windmills and solar panels on air force one as he flies this thing around using fossil fuel. as you look at energy production that's one way to get the economy moving again. but we've also got to focus on controlling washington spending. clearly there are some people who believe that washington is a spending problem. nancy pelosi actually said the other day she thinks it's almost a false argument, was her "to see that washington has a spending problem. recently there's a bureau of public debt where they actually
sell the debt. they did a couple times a week. it's one of the busiest buildings. you know where it is? the bureau of public debt is in chinatown. talking about knowing where your customer is. you can't make this stuff up. maybe we ought to bring president obama to see what the results of his radical spending are. so we forced the president to cut spending. one of the things we pushed, we are not only pushing the president but we are pushing our leadership to hold the line on the cuts that can out of the sequester to $85 billion of cuts and even though there was pushback we finally held that even though the president pushed for this, a year and a half ago then he tried to back away from it so we are going to force washington to start looking in this and that families do. but he's going to school children, still paying $300,000 for calligraphers to read the processors you can get for $50 right now that have calligraphy programs. let's not get them back in the white house and it's on air
force one. but we have pointed out on all of these friends he's going to go after lee of the food inspectors, there's $26 billion of the undeniable fraud but he would rather lay off the food inspectors and we are going to point this out in every federal agency. it repeals obamacare and does pro-growth tax reform so we can create jobs in america again that is what we can all be proud of it we contrasted with the president's budget that does not of that and then you look at obamacare and we had a hearing to uncover a scandal in obamacare and other scandal after scandal and so many broken promises and obamacare but you remember the people that can to washington and said we want you to pass obamacare it's good to be great and wonderful. so many of those groups got waivers. we uncovered this about a year-and-a-half ago. you remember all of those people? 1400 people got the weavers to
obamacare. they had a secret waiver from the white house did the afl-cio wanted a secret waiver. they got a secret waiver. who got a waiver? everybody deserves a waiver and it's called the repeal of obamacare and that is what we are going to be pushing for cash. so we have to get the country back on track. we have to restore the american dream, but don't be down. conservatism isn't dead when we run as conservatism we win. a few google the american dream you don't see a federal building in washington, d.c. the shining city on the hill already talked about still exists and we are doing it because i have a five-year old and a three year old on the same opportunity as an american dream that we enjoy today because it is under attack. but it's not going to go away under our watch commesso thank you for what you do getting our
country back on track. thank you for being here for having us. [applause] ♪ >> from one to another, governor bobby jindal has focused on growing louisiana private sector economy by improving the state's business climate. he has pushed for and signed a landmark education reforms that provides more choices to
families and reward of hard-working teachers and i don't know if you read about it but he recently tore it up at the gridiron dinner making fun of president obama to their face. it was hilarious. please welcome bobby jindal, the governor of louisiana. ♪ >> thank you very much. thank you. thanks for that warm reception and kind introduction. you know the organizers here tell me you've had the opportunity to sign up over 70 political speeches over three days. fiber offered a choice to hear 70 features waterboarding i might have to think about that. then you know i had the chance to come a few days ago to washington, d.c. to participate
in the annual gridiron dinner. there was an opportunity for me to outdo the president any speaking contest kind of like i did with the state of the union response a few years ago in 2009. fortunately for me i caught a break this time. it's my understanding that chuck hagel prepared the president for his remarks this time. [laughter] before i get started today, i do want to talk to you more seriously about where we need to go as a conservative movement. i thought before i got certainly would share a few of the joke sided with the president and the crowd that might to have a little fun before we get started i thought maybe a couple leiter moments before we got started. you know, the gridiron dinner is for the washington press corps and the president to take back. a night to share a few laughs and not share things seriously. just genuinely enjoy each other's company. kind of like the president's interview on 60 minutes the other night. [laughter] >> you know the gridiron dinner used to be known as the night
the media and the administration set aside their differences. back in the days when they actually had differences. i told the president of a lot to be clear i have no plans to run for president to it i mean, come on. what chance does someone with a funny name and dark complexion have to run for the united states? [applause] the truth is i am too skinny to run for president of the united states. at least my friend chris christi tells me all the time. [applause] you might not realize this, but the president and i had the same campaign slogan a few years ago. unfortunately ups sued us and stop us from using the slogan. you know what it is, what can brown do for you. [laughter]
speaking of brown i was hoping to see my good friend john boehner while i was up here. i see that mark samford is running for office again. mark is so committed to outsourcing she's and shipped his wife's job overseas. it's great to see the new senator from massachusetts, he was a little more in. my staff tells me we have a lot in common. from an indian politician to another i want to wish her the best in the united states senate to the [applause] >> ayaan understand because of the sequester the secret service detail has been replaced by joe biden with a shotgun. [laughter] i ran into joe biden earlier today. i'm not sure that he recognized
me know. he asked me to go get him a slur -- slurpy. i can see eric holder is with us tonight tbi heard do to the sequestration the attorney general can only afford to ship a couple hundred e legal guns over the border this year. [applause] mr. president, i want to commend you on your inspired choice for the secretary of state, somebody whose integrity and experience and formed the world of your administration's seriousness and depth. let's all give a dennis rodman a great round of applause. [applause] >> speaking of athletes i saw the president went golfing with tiger woods this week. he said this about the president he had come and i quote, an amazing touch. the last time tiger said that she lost millions in
endorsements and a hot swedish wife. the president say -- people say the president and i have trouble laughing at ourselves. we can't laugh at ourselves. that would be racist. [applause] this might surprise you i'm actually looking forward to president obama's second term. it will be refreshing to hear him stop blaming all of the country's problems on the last four years. [applause] that's enough with the jokes. i want to switch to some more serious lines. i thought you might need a short break from the serious speeches. [applause] i want to talk to you today about something i believe is critical for the success not only of the republican party but also of the conservative movement. you know, after losing two presidential elections in a row, now is certainly time for some
candid discussions. first radical concept i want to talk about is simply this: america is not the federal government. in fact, america is not much about the government at all to the american government is one of those things you have to have then you really don't want to see much of, kind of like your in-laws. this is of course the exact opposite of the political debate in the country today. right now we have got one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can expand it. we have another party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can get it under control. i'm here to tell you that is a terrible debate that is fought entirely on the opponent's terms. the debate about what party can manage the federal government is a very small and shortsighted debate cash. it's a greater than that. we do not deserve to win. public discourse today america
is pretty much defined by the government. by the latest move that occurs in washington, d.c.. if he were to land from outer space, you just watch the news, read the newspaper, go on the internet for a week he would have to conclude that washington is the hub of america. it's what draw raves and dictates the success for failure of america. you might think an additional washington devotees outlined areas we call states but they're pretty much just an adjunct of the federal government. this is not the idea america this is what america will become if we do not reorient our way of thinking. look at the the date that has dominated washington in just the last few weeks. we had the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, we had joe biden's gun control task force and most recently the sequester.
in reality, these are government side shows in washington that we have allowed to take center stage to read as conservatives, we are falling into the slideshow trap. all of the slide show the dates are about government. today's conservatism is far too wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget. if the deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall on the entitlement programs, even as our president creates new entitlement programs. today's conservatism is in love. we seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. i am here to tell you this is a rigged game, the wrong game for us to be playing. yesterday was a fiscal cliff, today the sequester, tomorrow the shopocalypse and the fiscal armageddon. i have news for you. our government already went off of the fiscal cliff. it hadn't years ago. it happened every year for the
last several years. and yet we somehow think if we can just unite behind a proposal to cut the deficit and the debt if we can just put together a spreadsheet that all will be well. i'm here to say that this obsession with zeros has everyone focused on what? on government. by obsessing with zeros on the spreadsheet we send a not so subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phoney economy in washington, d.c. instead of the real economy and billings or baton rouge. ..
the truth is this. nothing serious is deemed serious in washington, dc. [applause] >> president obama has our national debt over $16 trillion and climbing. larger than our entire economy. and he is not worried about it in the least. he calls it progress. ow remember his campaign slogan.
he says it is forward. i've got news for the president. if washington's debt is going forward, america's economy is going backwards. instead of worrying about managing government, it's time for us to address how we can lead america. the place where you can once become the land of opportunity, where she can once again become a place of growth and opportunity. we should put all our eggs in that fight in that basket. we need folks in washington who will devote themselves to the task of stopping this president from taking america so far off the ledge we can't come back. we must do all we can to stop it rapidly becoming the bankrupting of our federal government. but as we conservatives, as conservatives, we must dedicate our energies and our efforts for growing america, to growing the american economy, to showing the younger generation how america can win the future.
that path for american success does not lie in more government. if more government were the answer, our economy would be booming right now. the simple truth is this. you can't hire enough government workers, you can't give up in taxpayer money to your friends who own green energy companies to create prosperity. balancing our government books is not what matters most. government is not the end all and be all. in fact, the health of america is our objective is to grow the private sector, to grow the private economy, not the government economy. [applause] >> and this is most important point i want to make today. you take nothing else away from what i have to say today, please understand this.
we must not become the party of austerity. we must become the party of growth. [applause] >> now, of course, we know that government is out of control. he public knows that too and let we just lost an election. we must not continue to fight on our opponent's terms. the republican party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future based in every community in this great country and that is not based in washington, dc. >> we have fallen into a trap believing the world reinvolves around washington. the economy is based there. if our end goal is to simply better manage the disaster that is the federal government, you can count me out. i'm not signing up for that. i mean, honestly, who do you
hear wants to sign up to slow -- to help manage the slow decline of the united states of america? i sure don't. that's what we have democrats for. [applause] >> the democratic party promises to be the party of more, but they're actually the party of less. they're the party of economic contraction. austerity and less for the american economy. the only thing they offer more of is government. the republican party must become the party of more, the party that creates growth. the party that creates more in the real economy. as margaret thatcher famously on served, first you must win the argument, then you can win the election. [applause] >> and by the way, it's time for all of us to remember that we're not in this just to win
elections. we are in this to make america the greatest she can be. [applause] >> to make america the prosperous land of opportunity. to do this we have to win some elections. first we must win the argument. if this election taught us anything, it's that we're not going to simply win election biz pointing out the failures of the other side. we must show how incredibly bright america's future can be. so you might ask, what chose to future look like? how do we win this argue. well, for starters, have to recalibrate the compass of conservative tim. we don't need to change what we believe as conservatives. our principles are timeless. we have to be comfort able with the fact our liberal critics in the media will say we haven't changed anything unless be
endorse abortion and socialism. my response to them is simple. we already have one liberal party in america. we don't need another one. [applause] >> but we do need to reorient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives in the real world beyond washington and beyond the beltway. we must play out the contrasts between liberalism and our aboutum up real world philosophy. we believe the creating abundance, not redistributing scarcity. we should let the other side sell washington's ability to help the economy, with we promote the entrepreneur, the self-employed woman is who one step away from hiring her firs employee. let the delcrats sell more federal programmed and we sport
rejuvenating business. [applause] >> we don't believe all top-down industrial aid government becomes good just because we're rung it. we must focus on the empowerment of citizens to make relevant and different decisions in their communities while democrats sell government that cranks out one dumb-down answer for the entire country. this means rethinking nearly every social program in washington. very few work and the one size fits all crowd has had it chance. if any rational human being were to create our government anew today from a blank sheet of paper, we would have a fourth of the buildings in washington, half the government workers. we could probably replace most of the bureaucracy with a handful of good web sites. if we created american government today, think about this, we would never dream of taking money out of people's pockets, sending it a to washington, handing it over to
politicians and bureaucrats, who then staple how long to office pages of artificial and political instructions to it, and then wear that money out by grinding it through the engine or bureaucratic friction, and then sending it back to the states in order to grow the american economy. [applause] >> what we're doing now to govern ourselves is not just wrong. it's out of date and it is a failure. we as conservatives believe in planting the seeds of growth in the fertile soil of your economy. where you work, invest, dream, not in the barren concrete of washington, dc. if it's worth doing, give it to the states. if it's not something you don't trust the state to do, maybe washington shouldn't be doing it at all. >> we believe solving problems
closer to home should always be our first, not our last, option. shouldn't face a moral dill lem half. we ryan to right-size our federal budget and federal strings hand in the way. and democrats take more from working americans, we should stand for radically simply identifying our tax code. not for the benefit of washington. not for the benefit of washington but to get washington out of the way. let's get rid of loopholes. let's blow up the tax code. [applause] >> let's get rid of the loopholes paid for by the lobbyists. it shouldn't be complicated. get rid of the incentives washington tries to coerce our behavior. shouldn't be complicate ode for a taxpayer to fill out his taxes or live his life without fear of the tax consequences of his choices, and i have a message to
the president and democrats in congress. tax reform is not about taking more money from the hard working people of america and sending it to washington, dc. that's not tax reform. [applause] >> this white house has an insatiable appetite for revenues and more taxes. enough is enough. when it comes to education, what the dem credits extol the virtues of our one-size, fits all fact through r school where the child follows the dollar, and mean while let's support the education where the dollars follow the child. [applause] >> we had a union leader in louisiana who said that parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their children. that's debate we need to have as a country. i melt with a group of moms and they say we make choices for our
children every day. we know needs of our children better than the bureaucrat in baton rouge and washington, dc. that's the conversation we need to have today. these are just a couple of examples but we must fight the battle of idea or as margaret thatcher said, this is how we must win the argument. as i close, let me just share with you this. let me make this observation. america's facing her greatest choice. and the hour is late. we can either go down the government path or the american path. now, the left is trying turn the government path into the american path. shame on us if we let them do that. we believe that freedom incentivizes ordinary people to do extraordinary thing and that makes america an exceptional nation. the genius of america is our strength and power and growth come from the individual actions
of our people. government doesn't order greatness. government cannot command outcomes that exceed those in other nations. what sets us apart is not our government, but free individuals, taking risks, building businesses, inventing things from thin air, passing values from one generation to the next. that is the root of america's greatness. and that is our mission as we build a new republican party. we must shift the amibition of our conservative movement away from managing government and towards the mission of growth. it falls to us to show the younger generation the wisdom and the great benefit of the american path. it falls to us to unleash a new dawning of the american dream. the dream my parents came to america for. a dream of growth, equal opportunity, and prosperity. it falls to us to take the ever-fresh principles of freedom
ask apply them to the future. make no mistake. i'm not calling for a period of intro specifics and navel gazing. i'm talking about getting busy winning the argument. there's much work to be done, and then after that, after that, we must go out and win the next election so we preserve our children and our grandchildren all that makes this the greatest country in the history of the world. thank you, and may god continue to richly bless y'all. thank y'all very much. [applause] ♪ >> in our live coverage, eric kantor will be speaking at 4:00 eastern and we should have that for you on c-span.
also want to remind you we have been looking at the tweets coming in this afternoon, people reacting to cpac. and the hash tag@cpac. some e-mail show a growing rift between the new and old guard in the republican party, and then we looked over at mary, who tweeted, cpac sounds like the conservative equivalent of those abandoned japanese soldiers who thought the war was still going in 1951. >> we have those for you on our web site, also, former florida governor, jeb bush, scheduled to speak tonight at cpac. he will be the reagan dinner keynote speaker and you can see live coverage at 8:45 eastern on
c-span. >> the simple fact is we're all getting older together, and we're not the same -- our fer fit rates have dropped dramatically and we're having an inverted pyramid that makes our challenges relating to entitlements and social security even greater. slow-growing, developing countries, have had for decades lower fertility rates, japan and europe particularly, and russia, and now china is starting to feel the impact of its one child policy. we're better off than the rest of the developed world but our fertility rate has dropped to 1.8. the lowest drop in the last three years in recorded history. and unlike most of the world we have a tried and true way to deal with this demographic time been. demography does not have to be destiny if you change course in the path we could take is to allow for a strategic reform of immigration laws so we can bring
young, as separational people, that will rebuild the demographic pyramid to make our entitlement system secure and jump start our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of our hopes and dreams but also directly impact, immediately impact, economic growth. >> u.s. economic growth and immigration policy, former florida governor jeb bush, on immigration wars, saturday on book tv on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]
>> thank you all for joining us. it's an honor and a privilege to chair this hearing of the personnel subcommittee this morning. i want to thank ranking member, senator lindsey graham for his support and working with me to move this hearing forward as quickly as possible. i know all of our colleagues on armedded services committee share our commitment to improving the quality of life of the men and women who serve in our all-volunteer force on active duty or in the national guard and reserves, their families, military retirees, and department of defense personnel. and that is why this hearing today is so important to me personally, and to thousands of service members and their families across this country. the issue, sexual violence in the military, is not new. and it has been allowed to go on
in the shadows for far too long. the discourage of sexual violence in the military should be intolerable, and infuriating, to all of us. our best, brightest, and bravest join our armed forces for all the right reasons. to serve our country, to protect our freedoms. to keep america safe. the united states military has the best in the world, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of our brave member and women serving in unform do so honorably and bravely. but there's also no doubt we have men and women in uniform who are committing acts of sexual violence and should no longer be allowed to serve. too often women and men have found themselves in the fights of their lives, not in the theater of war but in their own ranks, among their own brothers and sisters and ranking officers in an environment that enables sexual assault. and after an assault occurs, an
estimated 19,000 sexual assaults happened in 2011 alone, according to the defense department's own estimates. some of these victims have to fight all over again with every occupies of their being -- every ounce of their both being to have their voice heard and fight for the disable claim that's deserve to be fulfilled. congress would be derelict in its duty of oversight if we just shrugged our shoulders at the 19,000 sons and daughter, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and do nothing. we must do better by them. when brave men and women volunteer to serve in the military they know the recollection involved, but sexual assault at the hands of a fellow service member should never be one of them. because not only does sexual assault cause harm to the victim, but sexual assault is
reported to be the leading cause of post traumatic stress disorder among victim veterans. bet sexual assault in the military destabilizes our military, threatens unit cohesion and national security. the odd of the enormous costs, psychologically and physically, this crisis is costing us significant assets, making us weaker, both morally and militarily. already this committee and the pentagon took some first steps on this issue as part of last year's national defense authorization bill that president obama signed. while obviously our work is not done, i'm hopeful we can build on in of these initial changes, which include, one, ensuring all convicted sex offenders are processed for discharge or dismissal from the armed forces regardless of which branch tray seven in second, we remove case dismissal authority from the
immediate commanding officer in sexual assault indications, which is an issue we'll look into today whether we need to remove this authority from the expand placed with a trained prosecutor. we lift the combat ban from keepses women, by opening the door for more qualified women to excel in our military, we have increased diversity and top leadership positions, improving response from heredship when it comes to preventing and responding to sexual assault. we passed an amendment that was based on our legislation which means that troops who do become pregnant as a result of a rape no longer have to pay out of pact for those pregnancies to be terminated. concerning our first -- second panel of witnesses, after we will hear from senator barbara becomesser, barbara boxer.
our second panel will be of men and women who will tell their story and i salute each and every one of you to have the courage to tell some painful and personal stories. it's my belief that by committing these self-less act you are encouraging others to step forward and are also helping to prevent crimes going unpunished. we have a duty to you and thousands of victims you represent to examine whether military justice is possible, and what is the most effective and fairest system that it can be. despite some very dedicated officers i do not believe the current system adequately meets our standard. that statistic on prosecution rates for sexual assault in the military or devastating. of 2,449 reports filed in 201 for sexual violence case, only 240 proceeded to trial. nearly 70% of the reports of rape, nonken send to all sod -- sodomy. and less than one in ten
perpetrates is taken to trial is not a system that is working and that's just the reported crimes. the defense department itself puts the real number closer to 19,000, system where, in reality, closer to one out of 100 alleged perpetrators are faced with any accountability at all. that is entirely inadequate, and unacceptable. my view is that emphasizing institutional accountability and the prosecution of case is needed to create a real deterrent to criminal behavior. the system needs to encourage victims that come forward and participating in their perpetrator's prosecution is not detrimental to their safety or their future and that it will result in justice being done. currently, according to the department of defense, 47% of service members are too afraid to report their assaults because of fear of retaliation, harm, or ungist -- unjust punishment. we need to take a close look at
the military justice system and we need to be asking the hard questions with all options on the table, including moving this issue outside of the chain of command, so we can get closer to a zero tolerance reality in the armed services. the case we have all read about, the aviano air base case, is shocking. the outcome should compel all of us to take the necessary action to ensure that justice is swift and certain, not rare and fleeting. i had the opportunity to press secretary hagel on the issue of sexual violence in the military during his confirmation hearing. he spend by saying i afree it is not good enough to say zero tolerance. the whole chain of command needs to be involved. i couldn't agree more. i was pleased he is opening to considering change military justice system as well as legislation to ensure effectiveness of our responses to the crime of sexual assault. in addition, the secretary has written two letters to the --
changes to article 16. this is a useful first step. after ranking members graham makes his opening remarks we'll hear the testimony from senator barbara boxer. last year she successful cluedded an amendment which prevent any individual who is convicted of felony sexual assault so be issued a waiver to join the military. then we well have witnesses who have been victims of sexual assault or knowledgeable advocates for addressing sexual assault in the military. i will now defer to senator graham to give his opening remarks. >> well, i want to thank senator hillibrand do have the hearing. a large number don't want to
come forward because they face reprisal. the purpose of military just is to instill good order and discipline in the unit so when they're called upon to engage the enemy and to train and deploy together, they can do so in a most effective fashion possible. the military's unique place, it's not a democracy. it's a place where you're asked to do extraordinarily difficult things, and you have to count on the people to your right and to your left to be there when you need them and vice versa. in the military, we have ' -- it's a crime for a commander to have a personal relationship, sexual in nature or otherwise, overly familiar relationship that could be consentual, that would be consentual. it's called frat turnization, and we should look at that policy as well to make sure we are dealing with those cases in an appropriate fashion. why would you be concerned about
a consensual relationship that you would not be concerned about the private world sniff your -- world? if your unit is called into combat, the last thing you want to think about is the person who has a close relationship with the commander may bet -- get pass at your expense. so we want to keep professional relationships between those who order the unit to engage the enemy so those who follow the orders will never believe there's some special relationship between the commander and a particular individual in the unit because that will break good order and discipline apart. so that is one area for human sexuality can really deal a blow to a unit that is consentual. i can't think of a more devastating blow to a unit than to have one member assault the other. if you want to break a unit apart and create a horrible environment to effectively
engage in the enemy, allow this to happen. because it shows not only physical violence is the ultimate sign of disrespect. i can't think of a more disrespectful measure than taking advantage of someone or physically violating them. that is just absolutely not only a crime, it is a ultimate detrimental demise of the unit to have such conduct break out, and the reason we want to prosecute people who do that is they are destroying the units effectiveness. they're the bad guy. now, having said that, i've been a military lawyer for 30 years. another problem that could hurt a unit is for somebody to be wrongfully accused, and feel like they have no voice. that the system is going to go
from one extreme to the other. so, at the end of the day, military justice is about rendering justice in an individual case, but always the theme of military justice is to make that unit as effective as possible to maintain good morale and discipline, and if you're a female in a unit and you feel like you're -- nobody carolina about what happens -- nobody cares about what happens to you, you have destroyed morale. also, if glory a unity people may misunderstand what you're saying and you feel like you can't defend yourself, we have to find some balance here, but for the victims, thanks for coming forward. i know it's nonan easy thing to do, and the numbers are astounding. if we're going to continue to be the most effective fighting force for freedom in and good in the world, we're going to have to solve this problem, and as long as you have human beings, you're going to have problems. but clearly the message we're
sending to our female members of the military is that we're way too indifferent and that your complaints are falling on deaf ears, and to all of our commanders, how in the world can you lead your unit in a responsible manner if people in the unit feel like the system doesn't care about them? i will do everything i can within reason to make sure that stops, and that if you are accused of an offense in the military, you still get a fair trial. >> senator boxer. >> thank you so much, madam chairman and ranking member graham. thank you both for holding this critical hearing. it's very timely, and thank you so much for this opportunity to testify. i'm very honored, very honored. so today i'm here to talk about the violent crime of sexual assault in the military, not
about done i'm here to talk about vicious crimes and not about false charges but real charges and the way they're handled. at you well now congress to our great, i think, credit, passed the bipartisan violence against women act, and i thank everyone on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard for that to pass. i was so proud that president obama signed it into law just last week. that law recognizes that every human being, every human being, male, female, deserves protection from violence and sends a clear message that wherever a sexual assault occurs, madam chairman, whether on a college campus or an an indian reservation, or in a religious setting, or in our military, yes, the offender must be punished. sexual assault is a heinous and violent crime. and it must be treated as such. it isn't an internal manner.
it's a violent crime and must be treated as such, and i want to thank each and every one of you for supporting the boxer cornyn amendment that says the military cannot take offenders, people who have been convicted of sexual assault, into the military. that will help us going forward. but we need to do much more. we know this crisis is staggering. and despite some important reforms by the department of defense -- and i thank them for those -- they're trying to improve prevention, investigation, prosecution. still, too many military sex offenders go unpunished and too many victim does not get the justice they deserve. as the charm said, this -- as the chairman said this is unacceptable and must stop, and we can stop it, and you particularly are the ones who can stop it. well, in response to a letter that we sent last week,
secretary hagel committed to taking a hard look at the military justice. he agrees that much more must be done to combat military sexual assault. now, let me tell you, i don't have all the answers. if i had all the answer, i would tell you that today. but one thing i do know, is that immediate steps must be taken to prevent senior commanders from having the ability to unilaterally overturn the decision or sentence by a military court. and i want to thank senator mccack skill, who introduced legislation to do just that. that is the first step and only the first step. two recent events i want to share with you highlight the urgent need for dramatic change. the first case involved the decision by an air force lieutenant general to dismiss all charges against lieutenant colonel convicted of aggravate
sexual assault. and all you yao had to do is listen to senator mccaskill's comments on that to understand how deep this hits us, many in congress and our nation were stunned to read the general used his discretion to throw out a military jury's guilty verdict. the jury of high ranking military officers and i want to say who was on this jury. four colonels, a lieutenant colonel, had sentenced the lieutenant colonel to a year in prison and dismissal from the air force. that is a jury of his peers for sure. under the uniform code of justice, the general's decision to overturn that verdict is final. and it cannot be reviewed or changed. now, the second event i want you to hear because you may not know this. it took place in my home state of california. last month in an army veteran shot and killed two accept cruz
police detectives who were attempting to question him over a sexual assault allegation. in the aftermath of this shooting we learned that even though the former soldier had faced two separate rape charges while serving in the army, charges against him were dropped and he was discharged without a conviction as part of a plea bargain. what is it going to take to convince the military that sexual assault is a violent and vicious crime, and that those who perpetuate it, they're capable of other violent crimes, including murder. what is it going to take if a vicious, violent crime, and those capable of that vicious crime, are capable of other crimes, yes, murder. these examples speak for themselves. and there's so many more. you'll hear them today and your heart will break. it is time for us to take swift,
decisive steps to ensure that decisions in the military justice system don't rest solely in the hands of one individual. it is not enough that our military says zero tolerance for sexual assault. you can say anything. i can say anything. you can say -- but the facts speak for themselves. the department of defense estimates that 19,000 sexual assault owes cure in the military. and i want to point out to my colleagues here, my friends, that many of these cases involve men, only 17% of these cases are ever reported. i am so grateful to both of you for this hearing, and senator gillibrand, i'm so happy you chose to hold this subcommittee, your first, on military sexual assault. i look forward to working with you on comprehensive solutions to this problem. today's hearing is the first on this critical issue in nearly a decade. a decade. it is high time not only for this hearing, but for changes in
the way the military handles these cases. i know we, all of us, who are touched by this issue, are going to work with their colleagues, run runs, democrats, independents, and with the military, the military most of all wants those go away. and we have to end this terrible tragedy of sexual assault. and think what an amazing legacy for this senate if we succeed, and enmore important, think about how many men and women we will right by protect. thank you so much and i am very excited about this hearing, and i know with your leadership, the two of you, we can get this done. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator boxer, for your very, very strong and valuable testimony. we're grateful for your leadership. we're not going to welcome the next panel. you can come up and i'll read a biography that's very brief of each of you.
we have anna, the executive director and cofounder of the service women's action network. anna is the former captain and economy commander, served as marine officer from 1999 to 2004. while serving, she faced christmas and harass amount as a woman in the military. we have bridgette mccoy, former specialist in the u.s. army, serving from 1987 to 1991. she was 18 years old when she signed up to serve her country in the first gulf war. while stationed in germany she was sexually assaulted bay commanding officer. we have rebecca, serving in the u.s. army from 2004 to 2008. the only female member of a bomb squad in eastern afghanistan and was attacked bay colleague near the pakistani border during her last week in country in 2007. we have brian lewis, former petty officer third class u.s.
navy. brian enlisted in the u.s. navy in june of 1997. during his tour abroad, uss frank cable, he was rained -- raped by a noncommissioned over and forced to go to seat. i encourage you to express your views and tell us what is working working and not working, hell us to understand what to do to address this problem over sexual assault in the military. we will hear your opening statements, your completed prepared statements will also be included in the record, following the open statements we'll limit our questions to seven minutes for the first round for the senators. >> thank you. good morning, chairman gillibrand, ranking member graham and members of the subcommittee mitchell name is anna, i am the executive director of service women's action network, or swan, and a former marine corps captain.
swan's mission is to transform military culture bit securing equal opportunity and freedom to serve without discrimination, harassment, or assault, and to inform veteran services to ensure high quality held care and benefits for veterans and their families. military sexual violence is a permanent issue for -- personal issue for a mow, during my five years others a marine officer i experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment. i was exposed to a cull rife with sexism, rape jokes, porn naggography, and sexual exploitation. my injurens came to a head in 2004. i witnessed reports of rape, sexual assaults and sexual harassment swept under the rugby a handful of field grade officers. perpetrators were promote or transferred to other units without punishment, while victims were accused of lying or
exaggerating their claims in order to ruin men's reputation. as a company commander i chose to sacrifice my own career to file an equal opportunity investigation against an finding officer. i was given a gag order by my commanding officer, got a military protection order against in the officer in question, lived in fear of retaliation from both the fender and my main of command and watched in here as the offender was promoted and also given command of my company. many of the women impeaked by these incidents, including me, 0 are no longer in the military. however, all of the officers who are complicit in covering up these instance dents have since retired or are still serving on active duty. i was devastated because i loved and still love the marines. i wish my experience was unique but in the last few years of working on this issue and the in
the hundred0s case wes work willing eve year i discovered that rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are pervasive throughout the military. sexual violence occurs today in every branch of service. in both operational and nonoperational environments in both cam bat arms and sport units, and affects both men and women. the department of defense itself estimates 19,300 assaults occurred in 2010. and that while 8,600 victims were female, 10,700 were male. this is a critical point. military sexual violence is not a women's issue. sexual assault is widely understood by military personnel who have been overexposed to a culture of victim blaming and rape mythology. so let's be clear. rape and assault are violent, traumatic crimes, not mistakes, not lapses of professional judgment, not leadership failures and not oversights in
character. rape is about power, control, and intimidation. thanks to a surge of pressure over the last few years by advocates, the media, and congress, military leadership has finally been forced to reckon with the issue of military sexual violence. some victims protections reforms have been successful, like creation of sexual -- transfers or in the air force case, a victim has a special victim's council and yet while the members help the victim after assault, it will neither prevent sexual violence nor change the culture that still condones sexual violence. mill tear leadership cannot solve the problem on its en. i urge congress to enact the falling reforms. first, congress should grant convenient authority over criminal cases to trained professionals, disinterested prosecutors. commander officers cannot make
truly impartial decisions because of their professional affiliation with the accused and often times with the victim as well. in recognition of this fact, a number of common law countries have already transferred cases away from commanders to prosecutors, deeming the pool si a violation of the right to fair and impartial trial. second, open civil courts to military victims. civilian victims of work place crimes, including civilian dod employee, have one critical avenue for redress unavailable to uniformed personnel. access to civil courts. to this day, the u.s. supreme court and the federal courts below it continue to maintain that service members are barred from bringing claims of negligence or intentional discrimination against the military. depriving military personnel of remedies for violations of their rights in the face of this judicial doctrine, congress must ensure that men and women in uniform can access the remedies available to all other aggrieved
individuals under the federal tort claims act, and the civil rights act. given the prevalence of retaliation against service members who report incidents of sexual assault and harassment, the absence of these remedies for military personnel is especially shameful. i'll close by saying that today we're looking at an institution that desperately needs to be shown the next steps forward. senators, do not let today's service members become another generation of invisible survivors. thank you. >> miss mccoy. >> thank you very much. for having me here. i have deep gratitude towards the who hear worked for our voices to be heard and for those here listening with hearts, poised to make positive changes, changes that need to come from the root. i'm a gulf war era service
connected disabled veteran. i was raped during military service and during my first assignment. that was 1988. i was 18 years old. it was two weeks before my 19th birthday. this happened in a foreign country, away from american soil, while i was stationed in germany. i did not report it for reasons which will become clear as i tell my story. that would not be the last time i would be assaulted or harassed. this is my story, but it's not mine alone. more than 19,000 men and women every year share similar stories. that year, the year that i was raped, that same year i was raped again by another soldier in the unit. another year, i was sexually
harassed by a commissioned officer in my unit. by 1990, between 1990 and 1991, another nco in my unit began to harass me through inappropriate touching and words and behavior. this nco requested i be moved to work directly for him in a work environment where there was no access, closed and windowless, key entry coded vaults. responsible receiving my shift schedule i can only -- i was at mental and emotional collapse. a senior woman nco, in my unit, helped me to write a written statement to present to my command, and to file a formal complaint. a complaint that my command answered by no official hearing, no written response, and it was only answered later with a
verbal response from my first sergeant, who asked me, what did i want? and that i misunderstood this ncos intentions toward me. only thing i wanted at that time was two basic things. one was an apology, and for the harassment to stop. that is all. i didn't know what was happening, and at no time did anyone ever move forward with my formal complaint. no was anyone willing to discuss the process with me. they did, however, remove me from his team and his formal apology consisted of him driving by me on base, rolling down his window, and saying to me, sorry. so, after that, in the days that followed-i was verbally and socially harassed, but on extra
duties that conflicted with my medical profile and socially isolated. eventually i was given a choice to either get out or to face possible ucmj action myself. most women who are victims of sexual harassment or abuse or threatened with ucmy action, so i felt i had no choice. i was literally terrified. so in that terrified position i was paralyzed and i just chose to get out because that was the option that was given to me. within a week, i had orders out of germany and was escorted by two ncos to my plane and that was it. my career was over. and please note, that in that unit i was not the only one that was sexually assaulted. our sexually harassed. men women came to me and said they had the same situation happened but never told me who
in fact did this. returning to the u.s. in civilian life was difficult and i had a lot of false starts. i had a lot of negative behaviors that get carried over from the military. i was anxious and overly protective. i became suicidal, and had suicide attempts. i went through severe depression and had multiple severe medical illnesses and was unable to carry on the rigors of work for which i was highly trained. i moved from place to place and was homeless and medically disabled, but not even the va would recognize this and help in the until two decades later. lost many material things and emotional relationships and struggled with my faith. i grieve because i feel i was the lucky one. i left my unit alive with an honorable discharge, and although discome bob lated and -- discombobulated, many live with personality disorders
on their record, further hindering them for applying for treatment. some don't come home to their parents alive. 22 years later, almost to the day of my early -- i was awarded veteran service compensation and service connection for military sexual trauma. can you tell me, why did it take so long? why did i have to go through so much before anyone would lisp -- listen to me? why did i have to be violates again through the process of asking for help and seeking claim status. today i volunteer in this -- and this helps to ground me. i volunteer through different veterans organizations, outreach foundations. i participate in listening sessions to help organizations like the sierra club and warrior songs to better understand the many facet0s of women's veterans needs. my history is chronicleed with other men, women, in the documentary service women come
marching home. i'm a social media peer supporter and advocate through women's social justice and acollaborate witness both veteran and community organizations. i speak and spoke at the surgeon general's task force for suicide prevention because suicide and homelessness are two huge issues in the military sexual trauma community. and with the claims denial and lack of personal medical treatment exacerbating the issues. of course, ptsd is the main contributing factor. i have to say i no longer have any faith or hope that the military chain of command will consistently prosecute, convict, sentence, and carry out the sentencing of sexual predators in uniform without absconding justice. only 8% of them are prosecuted. how many are relieved of their duty iys, their pensions, their careers? how many of them are placed on
national rental city as -- registry as sex offender busy returning to civilian life and what happens to the 92% that weren't sentenced or prosecutessed? let's not allow sexual predator, who happen to wear a uniform, the opportunity to become highly trained, highly degreed military decorated sexual predators. let's make sure they're convicted and dishonorably discharged and listed on the national registry. heat do -- let's do this before they go unnoticed. sexual assault and trauma has deep and broad roots in the military. let's deal with this from that roots and not just trim the branch. please make it stop. >> thank you. miss are. >> good morning. i am currently the outreach and education coordinate for service women's action network. i previously managed the
national help hundred for legal and social services. during that time i assisted and provided referrals for over 600 service members, veterans and their families, on issues reef lated to military rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. including overcoming barriers to getting v.a. military trauma claims excepted. overcoming homelesslessness, accessing -- i was an explosive ordinance technician and i achieved the rank of sergeant in three years and three months. i deployed to afghanistan from september 2006 to september 2007, and spent the majority of my time in the eastern province where i was assigned to a combined explosion cell and ied operations and i ran route clearance missions. i was awarded the joint service commendation medal for my aachievements was given an army achievement medal and good
conduct medal before i left active dutiy. my deployment brought more than just the stress of young al hazards. during my tour one of my team leaders continuously sexually harassed me and sexually abusive towards me. i ended up self-referring to mental health and on medication to manage not just the stress of my depolite but the stress of having to live with an abusive leader and coworker. one week before my unit was scheduled to return to the united states i was raped by another service member that worked with our team. initially i chose not to report because i had no faith in hi chain of command. as my first sergeant had previous sexual harris was. charges against him and the unit was sexist and hostile in nature toward women. after disclosing my rape to few close friend i inned up filing a report 60 days before i left active duty against both my rapist and team leader but hat no intentions of ever doing an a farmal -- formal investigation.
i entered the reserves in missouri and tried to start a different life for myself. reintegration was challenge and i had few support systems. i suffered with depression and the effects of ptsd. a year after separate from active duty i was on order for job training, and during that time i ran into my rape is in a post store. he recognized me and told me he was based on the same installation. i was traumatized be the unexpected sight of him, and sought oust asignifies stapes from an army chaplain who told me that the rape was god's will and that god was trying to get my attention so i would good back to church. did not file a report against my rapist. six months later a friend called me and told me they had found pictures of me online that my perpetrator had taken during my rape. at that point i thought my rape was always going to haunt me unless i did something about it. so i went to the criminality
investigation division, and a full full-investigation was completed. the initial interview was the most humiliating thing i ever experienced. i had to relive the entire event for over four hours with a male agent, who i never met, and explained to him repeatedly exactly what was going on in each of the pictures. after the interview was completed i heard nothing from the investigator until four months later, when cid requested i come back in do repeat my statement, to a new investigator who was take over my case. i almost refused. during the four month office waiting without any word on the case, except phone calls from my friends who had been interviewed, i lived in constant fear i might run into my rapist again or me might retaliate against me in some way. i decided to continue with the case even though i felt nothing would be resolved, and six months later i was told that even though my rainist admitted to having section with the while
married, the case was closed. military criminal justice system is broken. unfortunately my case is not a much different from the many a cased recorded. i feared retaliation. the produce retrauma tiesed me. many of the systems set up to help failed me miserably. my perpetrator went unpunished despite admitting to a crime against the ucmj and commanders were never held accountable for making the choice to do nothing. we need is a military with a fair and impartial criminal justice system, one that is run by professional legal expertises, not unit commanders. we also need an additional system that allows military victims to access civil court. without both military criminal justice reform and access to civil courts, military sexual violence will by widespread and a stain on the character or our armedded forces. thank you for your time. >> thank you in.
mr. lewis. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today on sexual assault in our military. i am humbled to be sitting here today before you as the first male survivor to testify in front of congress on this very important issue and thank you for allowing that privilege to me. i also want to take a minute to thank my partner, andy, and all the spouses and partners of survivors of military sexual trauma, survivors, also like to thank the parents and care gives that work so hard to keep us on a level playing field. some days they shoulder a very large load and deserve our wreck nation. ...
to a medical retirement for ptsd was denied by naval records. i carry that discharged as an official and permanent symbol of shame on top of the fiscal attack, retaliation and the aftermath. i fear will be discussed when i applied to be admitted to the buyer, even when i apply for a job. i wonder what opportunities it
may destroy. however, i choose not to dwell on what the pastors brought my way. it will graduate in may with a bachelor science degree from stephenson university in maryland and i will graduate in december with a masters of science degree from the same university. i plan to go to hamlin university school of law and i choose to work towards stopping this crime in our military. needless to say, because of my discharge of how to pay for all these degrees on my own. i am here today because i am not alone. this story is all too common. or check their defenders regularly hear some personnel seeking help if they are denied opportunities to report generally retaliated against, type is work being charged with collateral misconduct after reporting the attack. the culture of the blaming of failing to pay perpetrator must
end. the department of defense estimates 19,000 assaults occur each year in 86% of the ends do not report mostly out of fear of retaliation. of those 19,000 victims, but 10,700 men and 83 women. about 56% of estimated victims in our military are men. this is the part of the crisis the department of defense does not acknowledge. just what can i do to stop assaulting our military quakes first, we must recognize rape is not just about not. the recent action to set aside the guilty verdict of attack colonel wilkerson of sexual assault is another abuse of authority by a commander they'll have a chilling effect on military judges, prosecutors and juries and inhibit the end to
coming forward, it elevates discretion over the rule of law and precludes justice long into the future. colonel wilkerson said it has been in contact and wants you to know i endured eight months of public humiliation investigations. why bother to pick the investigators, prosecutors, judge, jury and meet through this if one person can set if a justice of this type of pan. i have here a copy of your statement which has been submitted for the record, none of chairwomen. reforms to date have clearly not successfully address this epidemic because they target systems without addressing the root cause of the military justice system is fraught with inherent personal bias, complex adventures, abuse of authority and a low regard for the team. civilians have the constitutional protections of a system, service members do not.
however, if those commanders take action improve assault occurred, they prove failure of zero leadership. from victim care to the processes through adjudication and posttrial. commanders are too often fail to care for the victim or prosecute the perpetrator. they have failed to in this long-standing epidemic. we also need to ensure prevention efforts are inclusive of mail service members. the majority of efforts are targeted towards female spirit as they demonstrated, and then are majority of victims and we cannot marginalize male survivors and send a message that men cannot be rape and are not real survivors. survivors of military trauma also made a fair a fair review of discharge military push about the doctor with inaccurate misleading and very harmful to
almost weapon a satanist is a personality disorders and future employment opportunities. we need to establish a system separate and apart from military records to examine discharges and grant survivors retirements due from the department of defense. the boards only change about 10% of their discharges. these make it much harder for veterans to find gainful women often we victimize the veteran and make it impossible for veterans who earned education benefits. in conclusion, this epidemic is not successfully been addressed in decades of review by the department of defense or by congress. some reasons include picnic on the survivors, and conflict of interest in justice system. the reporting investigation and adjudication must be taken into
an independent office of professional military and civilian oversight. the review process is a rubber stamp that causes lifelong harm and needs overhaul badly. it is an unfair way the department of defense fails us. congressional legislation created systems inherently biased, unfair and do not work. it is gone is his duty to pass legislation to service members to receive justice that is fair, impartial and finally addresses should be noted so many do not survive from theirs sexual soul. none of chairwomen come in this
concludes my remarks. i'm prepared for those of the subcommittee. >> thank you to each of you for such direct and thoughtful testimony. the chain of command and the fact should be illegal revealed prosecution. mainstream three, if we are able to institute it does not involve chain of command, do you think that would increase the number of cases and the cases where the connection is found >> thank you, senator gillibrand. it's really a two-pronged system. we have the pipeline of excuse, and being prosecuted and
hopefully convicted, but also the retaliation that so many servicemembers face in the process, which can just be dealt with through the criminal justice system in the military. yes, absolutely an independent prosecutor being given the position of authority, convening authority will dramatically shift the way that this approach whether or not to report carries a huge piece of that as well. we have to remember, i sort of look at it as kind of a cynical way of thinking about sexual a salt be inevitable. we need to do something on the front and to prevent assault from happening at all. and right now there is no deterrent within the military to prevent these crimes. there is no deterrent to cause a culture change. >> justice is served, that will
signal change within the military that if you do commit crimes will be prosecuted and punished. it's a separate need to take the criminal justice is not either in the military or civilian world and that it is made more than a criminal justice system to achieve closure, to get any full access to justice. the civilian but comes within our united states have much more access to redress and that's why it needs to be open to military but others as well. right on military victims have less access to justice and civilian victims who may have sworn to honor to protect and defend. >> if you could open the core system to victims they'll change the culture of the military? >> it has been designed to serve
that dems. there is a deterrent to work plays harassment and that's why it functions within the civilian context. they can go a week without reading the case in the news, in the mainstream news about the civilian victim of discrimination or salt actually getting her day in court because even the civilian criminal justice has been able to get her justice. >> what are some other ways we can change the culture within the military to create less of a climate of discrimination and possibility of assault and abuse? >> one intraoral previous to this is the discrimination which still exists in the military and despite secretary pimentos
fantastic news last month, only when military occupational specialty has been open to women as far as we know this far. we are very looking forward to it achieves announced and the way of the combat exclusions will be complemented. sex discrimination goes hand-in-hand with sexual harassment and a sexual of salt. >> to the other three witnesses, if you are able to report your case of assault and rape tree prosecutor directly, how do you think you would change how your case is handled and what differences do you think it would have shown? gophers to be like. >> i really have to reach back 20 years to think about it. i believe i would've moved forward with pursuing it. i wouldn't hope that the way. in my case, i did have
documentation to do anything. i would have something in place for someone to have that conversation so we could move forward with some type of legal process. ultimately i would still have my career. i would still be serving. i would not have been scared for my life because i would've had an intermediary to go to. >> ms. havrilla. >> i'm not sure if i would do much differently. i was in a platoon of 26 people appeared up until this year there was no potential for base transfers. had i gone through with a full investigation i would still have to live with many of the men abusive towards me. that is not anything i would've ever wanted to go through,
independent prosecutor aside. changing the culture within the military of how women are viewed. until the leadership is held accountable for the actions of subordinates, when leadership is allowed to push things under the rug, when leadership is never made to stand for the actions of others they hands-down could have easily said this is unacceptable and will stop. until that happens, not all units are like mine. had i been in that situation with that unit, i still would've not reported at that time. >> mr. lewis. >> thank you for your question, madam chairwoman. i want to be absolutely clear that my perpetrator was not just a perpetrator against me. he had perpetrated this crime against other is that the same
command while under the command of the same ceo. so yes, an independent prosecutor would've made a world of difference. it would have gotten the reporting outside the chain of command and not me about my commanding officer to sweep this under the rug. even if i had to stay on board with my shift and perpetrator, i would've still been able to access some form of justice. that at the end of the day would've saved me, i feel, a lot of heartache and a lot of disappointment hearing one of my senior members of my chain of command come to me and say you are not going to report this. that is devastating to any survivor, male, female, whatever.
it feels like your heart breaks when your commanders break faith with you and not -- and peered an independent prosecutor would've made all the difference. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator clinton. >> did all of you feet had someone in your corner, someone assigned to help you through the system, and not a kit that would've helped? >> i initially went to the sexual assault coordinator and i found them to be help to lend support of. but they have absolutely no authority with these issues. while it is comforting in somerset to know they were supportive and they were there, there's nothing i can do when you're going through the military judicial system. i think having someone because they eventually did a full
investigation and even then i had no one to guide me through that, to explain what was going on. i didn't hear from four months after my initial report, so having someone but the special victims individual who's trained in the legal aspects of what's happening and going on have been extremely beneficial when i was going to the investigation process. >> could you give the committee not in public here, but privately the name of the chaplain who told you that? >> i honestly don't remember his name but i can easily find it out for you. >> would you please find out? >> i can do that for you. about opening to civilian litigation -- how do you say a quick >> it's bhagwati. >> bhagwati would you suggest the claim be against the individual member?
[inaudible] >> the federal claims in civil rights act cases have been traditionally brought up for the victims. all of this needs to be closely looked at, but in our system, in our culture, civil rights are aware of it dembski just is much more frequently than in the criminal courts. so we have to look at how we make the military more on par with the civilian system. it makes no sense that young americans should put on the uniform and sacrifice their race. it makes no sense. >> you received a general discharge. is that correct quick >> yes, sir. >> maybe we can do this in the committee privately. do you mind if we look at your file?
>> no problem, senator. >> from your point of view, do you think having a victim advocate would be helpful for someone who could've went to that would've been in your corner to educate you the things you can do when you hit a roadblock? >> some survey various have had success at the vic do not advocate, but in order to be feasible, any person in my corner would have to be of rank and able to issue orders and able to do things to help me directly. i was fortunate enough to see mental-health and i thought that dr. was in my corner and he was sent. >> he was not? >> no, sir.
i cannot -- i just cannot imagine a case for someone of lesser rank could effectively be in my corner while being subject to the chain of command. >> you are victimized multiple times, is that correct quick >> that's correct. >> does you ever go through a process? >> i did not. i did go through the process of filing paperwork with another and ceo. they helped come alongside of me. at that time i don't think there is necessarily a victims advocate. i know we had training over giving steps to how to handle sexual harassment. >> the one thing i want to understand is rape is not
harassment. it is a crime under ucmj. you think a victim advocate may have been helpful to you? >> i have to say a victims advocate if they have proper rank and if they are set aside and supersede the unit and have more authority and power because if they come along and are supportive, i don't know how that's going to help the individual to the day to day reporting in isolation. i don't know how that's going to help that an individual what they are still stationed in the unit they are receiving that type of treatment. >> maybe all of you could comment individually could render personal experience, why do you think the commanders, the senior nco leadership, why were they so hostile to these
clients? >> in my own experience in the marine corps, there were signs of hope along the way. the infantrymen on the enlisted side were just as outraged as the vic dems have harassment and assault. however in the officer's side was the sense of an all boys club come across protecting the tenants and staff their chance. whether or not that has to do with an inclination to protect one's own career for a future star or there's misguided attempts to protect a good man because you know his family and a surfer 20 years. hear this all the times and because there's fewer of us, we spend time hanging out, it's a completely different culture.
it's why the case is even more courageous. there's disappeared of impropriety without looking to factor the case. that is typical in every unit throughout the armed services. >> one of the things they really do status is it is about a leadership, the hostility isn't necessarily even towards women. the hostility is towards the feminine, the perception of being less than in the perception of being weak. even now is the only female, is not doing targeted for abuse. we had two others targeted regularly for sexual harassment and sexual abuse that went through the same steps i did. it was not a gender issue. it was we are targeting what they see as less than an baby
and a woman i was automatically less than, even though it's just as good as they were. the mindset when you have the mentality and the leadership that allows it to continue every day. i can't see a single data to go by without some type of rape joke, sex joke, sex played between men. we had assault and harassment training to one of our surgeons cut upon the table and stripped completely down and laughed at it. that's a culture that in on a daily basis. when you deploy, you're stuck with these people in small units in small places and why would i go to a chain of command i knew was going to allow those things? it's just the kind of coulter is unit commanders allowed to drive and when you have the culture, these issues are going to continue to be perpetuated.
>> thank you. senator bloom and. >> thank you, senator gillibrand. what to thank you and other members of the panel who have been working for some time on this issue. i think senator mccaskill, senator shaheen, senator gillibrand obviously and i've been privileged to be a bug of some of the work has preceded this hearing. the hearing is critically important because it really highlights why we're here today, which is in the aftermath of the week of 10 years of war, we want to assure we continue to have in our military the best, the brightest and bravest. obviously sexual assault is one of the primary and predominant obstacles to retract the member training could people to our
military. so it's not just the vic guns, although we deeply respect and care for her for horrific experience you've encountered. it is the national interest that brings us here today. it is the interest of her extraordinary military but also brings us here today. they have demonstrated they are aghast and disgusted by this problem and are acting to do something about it. not just defense secretary hagel, but i believe many in the military will do something about it. i do today's hearing is a cooperative effort. cooperative between a span of nr department of defense in seeking to address a problem that ought to have zero tolerance, literally zero tolerance.
as the parent of two sons who are currently serving in the military and one who serves on this panel and has spent some of the best moments of my two years as a member of the senate with their military, three times visiting afghanistan, hopping the privilege of working with many military, i believe we have in our military right now the next greatest generation and if we can live with this problem, we sure we'll continue to have that quality of people in the military and i believe the leaders of our military are determined to make it so. this issue is more complicated than just making a speech for saying we have zero tolerance. literally, deterrence is in the details and i see that as a former prosecutor in connecticut for four and a half years. the details of evidence of
sentencing, i've reviewed an appeal are what will enable us to solve this problem and i welcome the suggestion that we have independent prosecutorial authority which may be welcome by many of the officers who have to make these decisions. i think these issues are to be explored. the wilkerson case is extraordinary not just for the reversal of the decision, but the sentence was only a year as i understand it and more troubling me and i'm going to quote from the false statement, mr. lewis, that was provided by the vic john. i endured eight months of public humiliation investigations by osi and the prosecution,
apparently without an attorney. i was interrogated by several hours by wilkerson's legal counsel without the benefit of legal counsel myself. interrogated hours either defense counsel without any aid of an attorney herself. so let me ask you, ms. trent re, would you suggest we had to have not just a victims advocate, but a victims advocate who is serving a fact as legal representation for the victim said that it demonstrates and perhaps expanded rights would be better protected? >> senator, that's a very sensible recommendation or suggestion and i would refer you to the air force pilot program. i imagine general hardin will be
touching on that in a few hours, but by all accounts we've actually referred a couple of clients just for this purpose, airmen who have needed the extra buffer because it's an incredibly intimidating process because there's so much hierarchy and power and intimidation inf forward. yes, that measure ice has been briefed to us goes beyond what civilian victims have, which is fantastic as military that dems need the extra buffer because the hierarchical environment in which they operate every single day, especially junior enlisted troops. >> we should be very clear. the civilian victims to come forward do so in a highly intimidating process. i can tell you is one who has seen this process improves over the years, they've needed the
advocacy of the military is beginning to provide and i commend the pilot program started and we will be hearing later from folks who can tell us more about it. i ask you is that guns or advocates now, whether that separate unit, which i've advocated out to be made institutional. >> i was just added you think there is extra pressure on military vic tunis. it's a very different combine environment in which you cannot quit your job or you'll be charged. the civilian environment, rape, a salt are horrendous but within the military have less freedom of movement, less access and is incredibly hierarchical system in which nine times out of 10 you are told to stay silent. that's how are trained.
>> nice havrilla commute highlighted that the coin attention to the culture within your unit, practices within your unit, which in essence are unreviewable because of the physical and command structure you encounter. >> it's something i saw outside my unit as well. i spent the majority of its imager forces and combat engineers. i spent 99% of the time deployed is the only female. i've had exposure to other units and capacities and some are just as bad and some are not. some treated me with absolute professional respect and dignity and i never had any problems. so in my mind it does come to what is allowed. what does the leadership say goes and doesn't go and filters down to the lower levels and continues to do so.
>> i time has expired, but i just want to close by saying your testimony in particular cause to the need for revenge and your part of it is deterrence. i see that as a prosecutor. i'm a big believer in firm punishment, excellent prosecution, but also education. and that the military has begun using an extra merry document called invisible war, which i hope will be shown to everybody. all of our brave young men and women so we can prevent the unit culture you have described so movingly. i want to thank all of you for being here today, for having courage to step forward, but also for your service and our military and thank all of the military and veterans present here today for your service as well. thank you.
>> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator ayotte. >> thank you for having this important hearing today in the witnesses for service to our country encourage for being here today. we appreciate what you have to say and this is an incredibly import issue. i wanted to ask about this idea of prevention and what do you think we can deal more effectively? i don't pretend to have a good understand and. and that the military has made some stat in terms of what kind of education they are doing, whether it is showing individuals a sound, but it seems to me we won't have prevention, said the military academies, basic training this be a core component of
readiness, training up the chain of command as a priority and what was your experience with that in any sense of what we can do more to make this change in the culture means being a core component of every aspect when you receive training in your readiness of awareness and reporting and accountability. >> i have to say it even starts at recruitment because we have quite a few of our men and women being rape during the process. i would say before you get to the center where having this process has been examined in all of your background history interrogated, it needs to start at the very beginning, before you get into the military so when people come in, they know
there is a no tolerance, that this will not be a breeding ground for you to retaliate against other people. it has to start at the very beginning and ashes but i believe. >> thank you, senator. one of the key components in my opening statement was that we not rationalize the idea of a mail survey of their. the department of defense campaign the last year or so was ask her when she's sober. the whole idea the campaign marginalizes a mail survey of their being able to come forward and given the strong societal almost blind eye turned towards the idea of a male to an hour then to come forward. the other things in terms of
prevention as it must be a core part of readiness and must extend all the way back to recruitment and commanders must actually put the things they learned and training into practice or if they receive an expedited request for cancer, the benefit of the doubt should automatically be with the victims and the transfer should be granted must be some extenuating circumstances it can stay. i would be hard-pressed to think of any. prevention also has to be a way of thinking and has to be accepted all the way down to the very bones of the people we don't do this against each other. we don't hide the crime when it comes. even if the crime does come out, it's not a failure in my leadership to say this has happened and 92 report just a
chain of command properly. >> thank you. this is a question i thought a little bit about. the dod has direction about how harassment training search of the conducted. a few years ago, the gao did a report on this training and it just doesn't happen the way it's supposed to have been for numerous reasons. we've been at war for over a decade now. it becomes a power point. read this, koans, move on. this get through this. one of the things we saw a this click through our sites can assign here and move on. but actually implementing the recommendations of having outside educators come in and do trainings, it's important to have someone not in the military
system who understands the military system that can come in and say this is what consent is. i can lay out and define that and say this is where it's going to happen if you do this and how consequences as we've discussed all morning for the actions if they occur. it's important that training is very. it's not been implemented properly. there's not much educators out there that are doing this. sometimes there's only one or two to an entire installation. they can't handle reports and new training at the same time. it does become a funding issue of how we provide appropriate educators for this topic from recruitment on. >> thank you. mrs. bhagwati.
>> ryan's point is really important. culture change cannot happen without an entire rethinking of how this is message within the military. generally, the way servicemembers and veterans talk about this issue is this assumption that you are aroused or assaulted because weak. weakness somehow plays into the entire makeup of why this is such a hard problem within the military. we are not trained to think of ourselves as weak. big event is not something any veteran wants to holland. winners messaging and small woman nec variation constantly.
there's nothing to do with the sex of a ictim. but there's messaging of alcohol and rape america lab says judgment in some cases decided perfect example when there's so many inappropriate mixing of messages. it's not just based on fact. rape tends to be serial. they use alcohol to undermine their victim's credibility. it's not a matter of young people partying on the wrong thing happening. they layout type x to do what they want to do. there's only a lack of understanding about what rape is, what harassment is.
the final thing is the culture so entrenched right now when it comes to sexual violence. because chain of command is how we've learned to operate from day one of basic training or ocs, you really need outside system is available within the military because it is hard for your mind to think outside of the thought of fisticuffs or 24 hour norm. the uniform changes you for all the right reasons because it is very affected operationally to be trained that way. when it comes to being violated, attacks, losing our dignity, we need outside assistance because they are obviously perceived as safer and definitely more functional. they worked better. >> i want to thank all of you. my time is up. usually first of all, sensory
assault and rape is not the weakness of the time. its power and control in the assertion and that in a military context becomes an even greater problem. my background is as a prosecutor, too. i want you to know i appreciate that narvik and so the salt not only in the civilian sector, but i imagine this is a greater issue of nature dress for men and women in all peoples to 90. two things briefly is that in my state in the civilian side we had what is called a big terms bill of rights and it seems to me there needs to be some bill of rights when you're in the military in terms of you know how he'll be treated and that has to be something the chain of command is held accountable for. i appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to hearing what you have to say i'm listening what you have to say
as they make sure we address this issue and stop what's happening. thank you. >> thank you. senator hirono. >> thank you all of you for your testimony and information provided. i've realized the situation is very complicated and one of the hardest things to change of course is the culture of the institution such as military. we are very proud of the service of our men and women in uniform, but these kinds of assault we must live in the right direction. some of the suggestions you made worse steps we should consider seriously. ms. havrilla, one of the questions you were asked to sit through her to know if the decision to investigate from the
chain of command and given it to an independent authority, something he said really struck me and he said while this is going on, you're still in the environment, still feeling very vulnerable. what are some things we could do during the process? basically i want to know what kind of privacy is afforded to someone who comes forward to report these crimes and what can we do, even if we were to remove the decision from the chain of command? >> when you're in the military you feel like you have no privacy at all anyway. when it comes to medical issues, there is no privacy. as mentioned, implementing base transfers are getting you away
from people that were perpetrators against you. i can't imagine being in my unit and going through an investigation at any point in time. but having the option of saying hey, i go to the sergeant say this happened to me, i'm thinking about reporting it, but i am not sure because i don't want to say it has to do with the potential backlash. what are my options? had they given me the option of saying we can transfer you to another unit, duty station. again, it's very small. it's not like i can go from one unit to another. i would have to literally pcs ergo tty in some capacity to change duty stations that have misstates basically. then you have the challenge of defining another location i decided to press charges and i'm
having to do this from a remote location. there's complications is never once discussed, that had i had the option to say you can go forward with the prosecution and not be in the unit you are in, i might've considered that very seriously. i can imagine doing it while embedded and entrenched with the same unit causing all of my difficulties. >> with the rest of you agree that should've been a present option to be rude for the environment in which these incidents occurred? >> absolutely. one of the current problems with the unit transfer idea is that a unit may be in the same geographic location. for instance, if this happened to me station out of pearl harbor, i was stationed on a submarine before i went out of
pearl harbor. if they could did note a submarine to support command right there in the same base, almost the same building. that shouldn't be. speaking personally, i'd rather do with pressures of having to do with the prosecution from half a state away or wherever in being a situation where you have to let a perpetrator in the phase where i have to eat, sleep, breathe, go to the bathroom or anyone else with that perpetrator. >> removing the decision to go forward with an investigation or prosecution should be run note an independent authority not at the chain of command. but all of you agree that would be a desirable step?
>> ms. bhagwati, there are other countries that have removed the chain of command for making these decisions. great britain has done so. are you familiar with the experience whether the incidents of sexual so went down in prosecutions when not, are you familiar enough to talk to us a little bit about what your impressions are these other countries that have made this kind of change? >> we've done some research. it's my understanding the u.k. systems are ones we should look at it closer detail. justice system is also one you can look at, although we see my success. beyond that, i would refer you to additional subject matter experts. it requires a great deal of further study, but the u.k. has
done it successfully and it's my understanding the prosecutors themselves are military, but the supervisor of those prosecutors to civilians is a bit of a mix in the system. >> so there's something definitely we can learn from other countries. i happened to read an article and the mcclatchy article march 13 talking about the case and it notes that because of all those the attention being paid to this terrible situation, these assaults, but somehow there's a political climate for where commanding officers for pressure to execute allegations in the article goes on to say commanding officers sometimes use they are prosecutorial discretion to proceed we case is
in a safe and examples of this happened. it seems to me, when this point to the desirability of removing these kinds of decisions from the chain of command so they wouldn't feel political pressure to prosecute the case this? would you like to comment? >> absolutely. it's a critical point that putting legal experts in charge of the process serves everyone better. decrease of four and more impartial trial for the accused as well. the classic example of why the current problem is so serious is the commandant of the marine corps doing the right thing by speaking out strongly against sexual assault. but because he isn't everyone's chain of command is problematic.
if you are removed from that process like other unit commanders he could speak strongly as he should come as everyone in the armed forces should. we have this perception is undue influence by the commandant or other military commanders because commanders had this discussion over cases. it doesn't need to be this way. are you going to direction of the u.k. we won't see this undue influence. >> thank you. bottomed chair, my time is set. thank you. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you senator gillibrand and thank you for being here today. rape is the crime of a coward. rape in the ranks are masquerading as members of our military because our military is not about cowards. our military does an amazing job of training.
i'm so proud proud of our military, but unfortunately, i believe this is not a crime we are going to train our way out of. because the crime of rape has nothing to do with sub tree of gratification. it has nothing to do with dirty jokes and frankly there's a lot of studies that say it's not even connected necessarily with people who like to look at dirty pictures. it is a crime of assault, power, domination. i believe based on my years of experience that the only way that dems are going to feel empowered in the military is when they finally believe the focus on the military is to get
these guys and put them in prison. so i put the focus of our efforts should be on effective prosecution and what do we need to do to make sure these investigations are done promptly and professionally, that the victims are wrapped in good information, solid support and legal advice, the prosecutors have the wherewithal and resources to go forward in a timely and aggressive way and you don't have the ability of some general somewhere who's never heard the testimony in a consent case can wipe it out with the stroke of a pen. what i would love from you all, some of your cases -- they're all compelling, all moving. i, like senator graham infuriated at that chaplain. i'm infuriated at the notion that some of the men who put up with what happened to your event
perpetrated what happened to you are still serving in our military. i would like to hear from you, especially the cases where we send, what happened when you reported in terms of getting good legal information about what your race where and what you to expect. >> thank you, senator casco. as mentioned i had done. when my friend notified the he had found the pictures of my rape online that it was actually kind of a spur of the moment decision. but as i enough is enough. i'm going to do an investigation. this is ridiculous. >> if i could go back to your initial decision because we know there is a huge number of cases but there's never a restricted or unrestricted support. just so you make the record
clear, if ever 20 years. >> i believe it's changed. i believe reports are to be kept for 50, the previously there's a much lower cap, correct. >> whatever the amount is, the difference between a restricted report and unrestricted is how timely we can get after it. it's not going to be investigated. >> you basically become a statistic. >> if in fact one of the reasons you major report restricted with the unique nature as being embedded in a work environment that is intense and depends on working together, what would have happened if you are told if there's probable cause found in the next 30 days of this crime
is committed, or perpetrator would be removed from the unit, what would your response had been? >> it would have been worth considering. at that point you have a timeline, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak was set standards and guidelines of this will happen in the event these are found. again, when you're in the middle of that, you the back with 2020 or monday morning quarterback style and think i might've done it differently, but when you're in the middle, it is extremely difficult to think clearly. it is a huge, but a fixture of health, how you see the world and yourself. had i had more information at recourses saying this isn't about me, it's about hand and
probable cause. i was asked later i was asked later what i did my full investigation, if they find enough, are you going to take this to court martial? i said yes, absolutely. in the beginning, that wasn't an option, not something given to me and again we can do what it so we want. looking forward i'm a different person and i would say yes absolutely i'm going to take that as the perpetrator will be done in dirty days of the potential for that perez. >> so you feel like your special advocate do you talk to, do you feel they were natural, supportive, try to talk you out of it, try to talk you into a? >> most of them are subverted and want to be helpful, but they'll understood their hands were tied to what they could
actually do is a victim. they kind of, when i went in to do the report against my rape come i mentioned the constant sexual harassment of my team lead. they said you wanted to report against him? sure why not. they were pressuring me into anything. it would say you have the option of also making restrictions against this individual and at that time violated the hand within 60 days and i was out of the army and that's all i wanted. i wanted to be done. i wanted to be away from the unit i was in. >> mr. lewis, did you feel at the point in time you reported anywhere that there was any legal hollow for any kind of hope that all that would have allowed you to move forward with
some kind of effort? and is your perpetrator still in the navy? >> i honestly don't know at this point, i hope it is far enough away that i honestly don't care. it has to be about me. >> i understand, but i care. >> i appreciate that. i honestly, when the situation came to light, there is an area silence that emanated from the face. >> what year is this? >> 2000. it was like a black hole that all of a sudden surrounded the office because the judge advocate general with support that. at some point it becomes about frustration of their own career rather than helping me. and there was no effective legal